phyllo wrote: You can think of yourself as an actor with choices or you can think of yourself as a domino without choices.

I think of myself as unable to determine [conclusively] what I ought to think of myself as here. If my "I" is but an adjunct of my brain is but an adjunct of the laws of nature then these very words that I am "choosing" to type here and now I was never able not to type here and now.

Only my attempts to wrap my head around that are in turn wholly in sync with nature. Or there is some aspect of "I" as "mind" which is somehow able to transcend the laws of nature in a "dualistic" universe where [either through God or No God] "I" am [up to a point] able to choose certain things of my own volition.

phyllo wrote: Why pick one over the other? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Can you switch around from one to the other? Are you better off adopting one view?

Either because I pick only that which I could never have not picked or, given some degree of autonomy, I pick that which here and now seems more reasonable.

And being better off depends on my own existential understanding of a particular situation construed subjectively from the perspective of "I" as dasein.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

peacegirl wrote:Determinism, the way it's accurately defined, does not mean we aren't able to act autonomously or with thought based on contingent events and sudden changes. Just because we can't act outside of natural law does not mean we can't change course or think independently.

Again, there's my bottom line here and yours.

Mine: how we define determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever have defined it. Just as any gap between how we define it and the way it really is reflects nature's way.

Yours: that I'm still trying to grapple with.

peacegirl wrote:We've been through this.

From my perspective: There you go again!

We were never really free not to have been through this. But somehow the natural fact of it is still the embodiment of my flaw and not yours.

It's not a flaw to say determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever be (let's leave the definition out for a second). But the problem is you keep repeating it, as if I am denying this fact.

iambiguous wrote:Now, I'm not arguing that we are either free or not free. I'm merely pointing out that here and now I don't have access to either an argument or a demonstration that convinces me one way or the other. Why? Because, like you, I don't have access to a complete understanding of existence itself.

It is not a prerequisite to be all knowing. What you are implying is that we will never know the truth of our nature because no one can ever get close to understanding the meaning of existence itself.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, what aspect of human interaction is not wholly in sync with cause and effect as prescribed by nature?

Nothing. We are all obeying the law of greater satisfaction when meaningful differences between two or more alternatives are compared.

peacegirl wrote:Everything we do is in sync with nature's way but...nature cannot force us to act in a way that we ourselves are not in sync with, or give permission to.

iambiguous wrote:So, everything that we do is necessarily in sync with nature's way. But, unlike dominos, we "choose" to be in sync with nature. Even though that "choice" must in turn be subsumed in everything.

We don't choose to be in sync with nature, as if we have a choice not to be in sync. We can't help but be in sync with nature. It's beyond our control.

iambiguous wrote:And how would the "definition that you are using" -- "choosing" -- not also be subsumed in everything?

It is. I am only clarifying two things. One, we are always moving in the direction that pushes us away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position every single moment of our lives. This means we can't choose what we, not others, believe is worse for ourselves when something better, in our eyes, is offered as an alternative. Two, nothing but nothing can force us to do anything against our will, or without our consent, not nature, not God, not anything therefore it is incorrect to say "I was made to do something against my will" because nothing has the power to do that.

iambiguous wrote:The laws of nature are either embedded in a teleological component of Existence, or they are not. One can imagine a God prescribing or proscribing human behaviors. But nature? Wanting to kill or not wanting to kill is neither here nor there to nature. It is just nature evolving into matter evolving into minds necessarily compelled to want or not to want anything.

peacegirl wrote:That is true, our brains are necessarily compelled, based on multivariate factors, to want or not to want anything. But this does not remove autonomy in the way it's normally defined, nor does it have to be excluded since contingent events are always coming into play. Autonomy and determinism (the way it's accurate defined) are not mutually exclusive, which is what you have come to believe.

iambiguous wrote:The laws of nature would compel particular brains to define determinism "normally". Just as the laws of nature compel my brain not to. Just as how your brain defines an "accurate" definition of determinism is compelled by whatever set into motion the laws of nature.

That's true, your brain is compelled to define determinism one way, and mine another, but they are not that different in the most important sense (i.e., could not do otherwise) and do not have to create a stumbling block.

peacegirl wrote:Determinism encompasses all matter. The human mind is no exception but you are ignoring an important adjunct to this understanding, which I will state again: Nothing but nothing has the power to force you to do anything you make up your mind not to do, for over this you have mathematical control. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

iambiguous wrote:My brain is wholly determined by the laws of matter. And that would seem to include my brain ignoring your important adjunct. My brain cannot freely choose to lead the horse to water. The horse's brain cannot freely choose to drink the water.

The horse's brain can't freely choose to drink the water, but he also can't freely choose not to drink the water. The only adjunct is that the horse can't be forced to drink the water (barring being forced physically by being held down, which is not what I'm referring to) if he doesn't want to. There is nothing inconsistent here.

iambiguous wrote:Instead, nature unfolds such that I was never not able to lead it to water and it was never not able to drink or not drink it. Only the horse's brain is not able to reconfigure its "choice" into a philosophical quandary like mine "chooses" to.

That is true. Life moves in one direction only (toward greater satisfaction even if it's just scratching an itch), which is why no living creature has a free choice.

iambiguous wrote:Think about it. The distinction that I am making here is one that I am compelled to make and it is flawed? Indeed, this is precisely why some will embrace the idea of a wholly determined universe. Everything that they think, feel, say and do, they are off the hook regarding. "Flaws" are no less the embodiment of nature than "perfection".

peacegirl wrote:Regardless that they are the embodiment of nature, they are still flawed and need correction. If I say that 2+2 is 5, that is also no less the embodiment of nature but I would appreciate being corrected.

iambiguous wrote:If you could never not say that 2 + 2 = 5, and someone else could never not correct you, and you could never not have appreciated it...

We're just stuck here. I am still -- necessarily -- at a loss regarding your own -- necessary -- rendition of determinism defined.

Nothing could not be as it is. I was only saying that most people, when shown they are incorrect about something will want to know how to correct their mistake. Their desire to fix their error would give them greater satisfaction than not fixing it.

iambiguous wrote:...I was never able not to be confused over the meaning of determinism.

peacegirl wrote:I never said that you were never able not to be confused but that does not take away from the fact that it needs correction.

iambiguous wrote:Nor does it take away the fact that any correction that is made was only ever going to be.

No one is disputing this.

peacegirl wrote:The only reason the terms are contradictory to you is because you don't understand how I'm using the term "responsibility".

iambiguous wrote:And the only reason I was not able to understand how you are using the term "responsibility" was because I was never able to understand it. Nature had other plans. Plans that are reflected only in her immutable laws. Laws that we still have no complete understanding of.

We do have an understanding of determinism. We don't have to have a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws to understand some of nature's immutable laws. Determinism, the way it's accurately defined, is one of them. What lies beyond this understanding is fantastic because it has the power to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale.

peacegirl wrote:For example, if a person runs a red light and injuring someone, he is responsible no one else but that doesn't mean he is responsible in the sense that he could have done otherwise. But this is only part of the equation. This alone will not prevent a person from slowing down rather than speeding up if that is what gives him greater satisfaction. The feeling of hurting someone when he knows in advance he will not be blamed for this careless act, WILL STOP HIM.

iambiguous wrote:In either context, what this person knows is a natural fact.

Thus:

But if nature has no meaning or purpose embedded in its laws, then the dominoes falling, the cars piling up and the human brains that brought both situations into existence were never going to not unfold as they must.

Regardless of what a person believes regarding nature's purpose, the cars piling up and the human brains that brought this situation (apart from dominoes crashing where there is no choice whatsoever) will be prevented from coming into existence as part of the "unfolding as they must" deterministic process.

peacegirl wrote:That is very true. All I am showing is that this law of our nature, when applied to our environment, will cause us to veer in a new direction but still in keeping with deterministic law.

iambiguous wrote:That is how I would put it. We veer or do not veer because we must. We want or do not want to injure someone because we must. The consequences are what they are because that is quite simply nature's way.

Nothing at all that unfolds is other than as nature compelled it to.

True, and as we understand how to prevent conflict and create cooperation, this unfolding is also nothing other than as nature compels it to be. Today, some want to injure as they must. Tomorrow, they will be compelled to not injure as they must. Same nature, but veering in a different direction as it must.

iambiguous wrote:I shift where nature compels me to. Just as you do. In a determined universe. And "control" here revolves entirely around a complete understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl wrote:If you could allow me to show you where these two principles take us, we would make progress.

iambiguous wrote:Bingo. If I could allow you to show me...". But: however I want to sustain what I construe to be my greater satisfaction here is all at one with nature itself.

Then back to you concuring with me...

iambiguous wrote:Others are compelled to either read [the author] or not. But either way, the future [like the present] is already inherently a continuation of the past. Once nature's laws set us in motion we are only ever going to "choose" what must be.

I'm having difficulty with this because what you are saying in so many words is back to having no choice because nature (as if nature is something other than ourselves) is forcing our choices. Obviously, the future is a continuation of antecedent events, our heredity, and our experiences.

peacegirl wrote: True. It took two thousand years for people to finally accept that the earth is round, so who knows how long it will take to bring this discovery to light.

iambiguous wrote:Well, it will take as long as it must in order for the future to be what it must.

peacegirl wrote:Very true. None of us know what our efforts will produce or what the future will be. It will be what it must be, in the final analysis.

iamiguous wrote:There is no final analysis here other than that which is necessarily in sync with nature unfolding as it must. "I" am just along for the ride.

We are just along for the ride but we do play a part in how nature unfolds. None of the unfolding "as it must" is of our own free will but that does not mean we simply do nothing, nor does it mean we don't find great satisfaction in finding a sense of purpose based on our talents and what we're called to do.

iambiguous wrote:...with God it is possible to imagine the existence of meaning and purpose behind existence. And "sound principles" as being in sync with God's will. With nature -- nature as this profoundly mysterious explanation for existence -- "sound principles" suggests that nature is as it is because it is in fact "sounder" than being some other way.

And we don't know why it is this way at all.

peacegirl wrote: We don't have to know the reason for why nature is the way it is, or if God exists. All we really need to know is that we are moving toward a world of peace and brotherhood as a result of this knowledge (which you haven't read).

iambiguous wrote:Again, from my own necessary frame of mind you have yet to demonstrate to me that this "knowledge" is anything other than an argument -- a world of words -- wholly in sync with the internal logic of its own assumptions.

There are no assumptions here, and this is not logic.

iambiguous wrote:Not only am I compelled to "choose" not to read it but I am compelled in turn to note that your own assumptions regarding "peace and brotherhood" in the future are just existential contraptions, rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. And, as well, in the assumption that we do have some measure of autonomy in choosing to understand them as we do.

Man has the ability to think, to create, to observe, and to discover. Call it autonomy if you like. The label you give it doesn't matter. It's the reality behind the label that counts. I'm not sure why you call the claim that peace and brotherhood are within our reach, just assumptions. You have no basis for this comment other than your opinion and your belief that peace is impossible. You are dead wrong.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

iambiguous wrote:We were never really free not to have been through this. But somehow the natural fact of it is still the embodiment of my flaw and not yours.

It's not a flaw to say determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever be (let's leave the definition out for a second). But the problem is you keep repeating it, as if I am denying this fact.

No, the problem is that, given my own understanding of determinism, I can never not keep repeating it as long as repeating it is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

So "flaws" are merely built right into this exchange. Whereas in an autonomous universe flaws result from you and I having the actual capacity to get something right...but one of us still keeps getting it wrong.

iambiguous wrote:Now, I'm not arguing that we are either free or not free. I'm merely pointing out that here and now I don't have access to either an argument or a demonstration that convinces me one way or the other. Why? Because, like you, I don't have access to a complete understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl wrote: It is not a prerequisite to be all knowing. What you are implying is that we will never know the truth of our nature because no one can ever get close to understanding the meaning of existence itself.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explanable given a complete understanding of existence.

Then the part about the future here is either going to be what it could only ever be or [somehow] human brains/minds have the inherent capacity to shape that future one way rather than another.

Then it is back to be rephrasing that and you being entirely in agreement:

iambiguous wrote:Okay, what aspect of human interaction is not wholly in sync with cause and effect as prescribed by nature?

peacegirl wrote:Nothing. We are all obeying the law of greater satisfaction when meaningful differences between two or more alternatives are compared.

As though our "greater satisfaction" is not in turn a necessary aspect of nature unfolding like clockwork -- with or without a clockmaker.

It's "beyond our control" to be in sync with nature. We "can't help it". But somehow that's not the same as a domino being in sync with it because dominos can't "choose" to be.

iambiguous wrote:The laws of nature would compel particular brains to define determinism "normally". Just as the laws of nature compel my brain not to. Just as how your brain defines an "accurate" definition of determinism is compelled by whatever set into motion the laws of nature.

peacegirl wrote: That's true, your brain is compelled to define determinism one way, and mine another, but they are not that different in the most important sense (i.e., could not do otherwise) and do not have to create a stumbling block.

If there are stumbling blocks how are they not entirely of nature's making? Again, they are not stumbling blocks in the manner in which autonomous human beings view them. Why? Because autonomous human beings are able to actually get around them of their own volition. They accomplish this, whereas entirely determined men and women merely "accomplish" it.

iambiguous wrote:...nature unfolds such that I was never not able to lead it to water and it was never not able to drink or not drink it. Only the horse's brain is not able to reconfigure its "choice" into a philosophical quandary like mine "chooses" to.

peacegirl wrote: That is true. Life moves in one direction only (toward greater satisfaction even if it's just scratching an itch), which is why no living creature has a free choice.

Hmm. That sounds familiar. Just as the points I raise sound familiar to you. So, the "stumbling block" here is either within our capacity to move beyond or it's not. Meaning that if one of us does make a breakthrough and the other finally "sees the light" it was only because that was always going to be the case.

Nature prevails! Again!!

peacegirl wrote:The only reason the terms are contradictory to you is because you don't understand how I'm using the term "responsibility".

iambiguous wrote:And the only reason I was not able to understand how you are using the term "responsibility" was because I was never able to understand it. Nature had other plans. Plans that are reflected only in her immutable laws. Laws that we still have no complete understanding of.

peacegirl wrote: We do have an understanding of determinism. We don't have to have a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws to understand some of nature's immutable laws.

If determinism is embedded in that which explains a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws, how can we have a complete understanding of one without a complete understanding of the other? That makes no sense.

Here I keep coming back to this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

This continues to boggle my mind. All this stuff about "free will" in a universe where the "immutable laws of matter" relect less than 5% of the universe.

Or the multiverse?

Sure, shrug that part off. That's what all folks who have these grand understandings of all things do, in my view.

For example:

peacegirl wrote: Determinism, the way it's accurately defined, is one of them. What lies beyond this understanding is fantastic because it has the power to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale.

From my frame of mind, it is the believing in things like this itself that propels you into the future. A whole new progressive world if only others would grasp the author's points. Or, perhaps: If only others could grasp his points. In a world where nature and nature alone decides these things. Ultimately.

peacegirl wrote:All I am showing is that this law of our nature, when applied to our environment, will cause us to veer in a new direction but still in keeping with deterministic law.

iambiguous wrote:That is how I would put it. We veer or do not veer because we must. We want or do not want to injure someone because we must. The consequences are what they are because that is quite simply nature's way.

Nothing at all that unfolds is other than as nature compelled it to.

peacegirl wrote: True, and as we understand how to prevent conflict and create cooperation, this unfolding is also nothing other than as nature compels it to be. Today, some want to injure as they must. Tomorrow, they will be compelled to not injure as they must. Same nature, but veering in a different direction as it must.

How we both agree and disagree about the very same things! That's what fascinates me. In many ways, you reflect what I imagine a wholly determined universe is. But then we imagine the consequences of it in very different ways.

The future is as it must be but it must be more progressive if nature compells enough people to read the author's book. This makes sense to you in a way that does not to me. I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that I still have no capacity [autonomous or not] to grasp it here and now.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:Others are compelled to either read [the author] or not. But either way, the future [like the present] is already inherently a continuation of the past. Once nature's laws set us in motion we are only ever going to "choose" what must be.

peacegirl wrote: I'm having difficulty with this because what you are saying in so many words is back to having no choice because nature (as if nature is something other than ourselves) is forcing our choices. Obviously, the future is a continuation of antecedent events, our heredity, and our experiences.

I'm not arguing that men and women here on earth don't choose behaviors that propel the future in one or another direction, only that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now, they have no option, no capacity to actually choose anything other than what nature's laws compel them to "choose". At least in our 5% of the universe.

iambiguous wrote:Not only am I compelled to "choose" not to read it but I am compelled in turn to note that your own assumptions regarding "peace and brotherhood" in the future are just existential contraptions, rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. And, as well, in the assumption that we do have some measure of autonomy in choosing to understand them as we do.

peacegirl wrote: Man has the ability to think, to create, to observe, and to discover. Call it autonomy if you like. The label you give it doesn't matter. It's the reality behind the label that counts. I'm not sure why you call the claim that peace and brotherhood are within our reach, just assumptions. You have no basis for this comment other than your opinion and your belief that peace is impossible. You are dead wrong.

From my frame of mind, to say that human beings have the capacity to think, to create, to observe, and to discover is merely to acknowledge that you were compelled to think, feel and say that here and now. And that, in turn, how I and others react to it is no less compelled by the laws of nature. And that whatever I call it I was never able to not call it. And thus the "basis" for all of this is determinism.

And I'm not saying that peace is impossible. I am merely pointing out that it will be predicated on those who have the capacity to enforce particular sets of behaviors in particular contexts.

Hitler might have conquered the world way back when and the world war would have been over. Peace would prevail.

Not what some would call a "progressive" peace, but peace none the less.

But in an autonomous universe we would at least have the capacity to judge that peace from conflicting moral and political narratives. Whereas in a wholly determined universe Hitler was no more flawed in his thinking than those who fought against him.

The Holocaust simple was what it could only ever have been.

And it is the implications of this that [I would imagine] most deeply disturb the free will folks among us.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Last edited by peacegirl on Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

you probably ought to stop reading that book, peacegirl, because if it's responsible for putting into your head this confusing version of compatibalism that you seem to be espousing (without knowing it), you're going to either a) remain in a state of confusion indefinitely, or b) hit yourself in the head once/if you finally understand how all this is nonsense, and curse yourself for the time you wasted.

what iambiguous is saying is nauseatingly simple to understand and i can't imagine why you aren't getting it. all these factors which you introduce as things free from causality, i.e., 'desire for greater satisfaction' or 'desiring one choice over another', are just as much subject to casually sufficient antecedent conditions as anything else in the universe. if determinism is true, NOTHING is 'free'... not your desires, not your particular conditions for greater satisfaction, not your deciding one choice over another. everything going on in your brain is compelled to be in a particular state, a particular way, by the state of events that preceded it, and so on to infinity (or a first cause, if you want to go that route... but i wouldn't).

so when you think to yourself 'gosh i think i should choose x rather than y because it would lead to greater satisfaction', you aren't free to decide you would be more satisfied by choosing x. you have become conditioned to be more satisfied when x, and those forces that engendered in you the experience of satisfaction when x, were never under your control... much less a matter of you choice.

this book your are reading is pushing a compatibalist idea that was refuted a hundred years ago or more, and there is nothing new or groundbreaking in it, i can promise you (without even reading it).

a much more interesting subject would be a politically oriented discussion about what would happen, and how it would happen, if the doctrine of determinism were literally taught in schools and became as commonplace as the belief in gravity. that's what would catch my eye; the nervous fervor of the world that would result from the official abolition of the belief in freewill. i'd buy a ticket for that event in a minute. imagine the mayhem that would ensue (hopefully). it'd be the kind of monumental paradigm shift that would literally shake civilization. something that would force radical political changes or usher in a return to barbarism. in either case, we'd finally get some action worthy of attention.

let's assume a 'type physicalism' approach to the matter of volition. all mental events are correlated to physical events in the brain. this is a common sense empirically sound position, but there's problems with it. one of which is the question; do physical events in the brain cause mental events, or are they merely contiguous to them (we ask this because of hume, the inglorious bastard with his induction fallacy). if we supposed they were only contiguous (or parallel), we'd have to replace one kind of causality with another since we'd still have to explain what 'made' the mental event happen.

hold that question for a moment and look at the model we now have. we are postulating two kinds of ontologically distinct substances; one is the physical world, and the other is... whatever human 'agency' is made of. each distinct substance would be operating by its own kind of causality... but these two kinds of causality couldn't ever intersect, couldn't ever affect each other. we have a ball that gets put into motion by physical force x, and we have a human being that is put into motion by 'agency' force x (that somehow mysteriously 'touches' the brain to make a mental event occur which then causes you to raise your arm). even though there are two different forces working here, there are still forces operating... so whatever compels the 'agency' force to happen is just another kind of causality. in that case, the 'agency' isn't free either... even though it isn't affected by the physical causality operating in the world.

see what's just happened? we've found a problem with emergent materialism regarding the nature of the causality through/by which the 'agency' acts. so even when we don't reduce mental events to effects of physical events, we still have to explain how the mental events come about, as well as the mysterious causal connection the mental event has with the physical substance of the brain.

because of hume, we can't logically deduce that causality is happening (one event follows another, that's it. doesn't mean one 'caused' the other). okay fuck it. we'll let hume have that one. but now watch what happens when you take the indeterminist position; every single event that occurs, occurs spontaneously and without being conditioned by anything else. but here's the kicker. it keeps on happening like this. it'd be one thing to say a finite set of spontaneous events occurred and then stopped... but quite another to watch a series of indeterminate events occur over and over and over again. something must be causing this series to occur, and the cause can't be from any of the individual things happening. it'd be a cause that oversees the entire system of indeterminate events.

does hume really want to take this position? i doubt it. so i think kant's synthetic a priori category of causality is the best we can do. we can't 'experience' causality, but at the same time, if it isn't real, we've got a whole nuther set of conceptual antinomies to contend with. so we logically infer kant's synthetic a priori category of causality to avoid this mess.

so we're back at type-physicalism because now we can logically infer that physical events cause mental events. now we've got to ask; are mental events epiphenomena? that is, can mental events cause physical events. wait... that's a trick question. remember, we just concluded that there aren't mental events, only physical events, a certain type of which we call 'mental' events. so then this is a non-problem at this point.

all that's left to do is explain how freewill is impossible in the model we are using now. we know that all mental events (thoughts, feelings, notions, whatever) follow physical events in the brain. we might as well say 'are caused by' so we don't get caught up in that indeterminist problem pointed out earlier. well then it's simple. ionized potassium particles travel along an axon and charge an action potential in a dendrite that either fires and produces a muscle contraction, or not... and you don't 'choose' whether or not it will. if it does fire, you raise your arm and think 'hey i just chose to do this', and that mental event is also part of the set of physical events that involved the action potential that resulted in the raised arm.

iambiguous wrote:We were never really free not to have been through this. But somehow the natural fact of it is still the embodiment of my flaw and not yours.

It's not a flaw to say determinism in a wholly determined universe is how we could only ever be (let's leave the definition out for a second). But the problem is you keep repeating it, as if I am denying this fact.

No, the problem is that, given my own understanding of determinism, I can never not keep repeating it as long as repeating it is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

That's where you're confused. You can stop repeating it as long as you want to stop repeating it, in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is giving you greater satisfaction to say the same thing over and over. You are using this as an excuse by saying the repetitiveness of your posts has already been embedded with the laws of matter, preventing you from making another choice. This is false.

iambiguous wrote:So "flaws" are merely built right into this exchange. Whereas in an autonomous universe flaws result from you and I having the actual capacity to get something right...but one of us still keeps getting it wrong.

Now, I'm not arguing that we are either free or not free. I'm merely pointing out that here and now I don't have access to either an argument or a demonstration that convinces me one way or the other. Why? Because, like you, I don't have access to a complete understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl wrote: It is not a prerequisite to be all knowing. What you are implying is that we will never know the truth of our nature because no one can ever get close to understanding the meaning of existence itself.

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explanable given a complete understanding of existence.

You are incorrect. You and me may not be able to communicate, but that does not mean the truth of determinism cannot be understood. I maintain that this concept is not only wholly explainable but extremely significant.

iambiguous wrote:Then the part about the future here is either going to be what it could only ever be or [somehow] human brains/minds have the inherent capacity to shape that future one way rather than another.

We have the inherent capacity to shape the future because we are able to analyze, compute, and develop our world, but this capacity is not free since we can only move in one direction.

iambiguous wrote:Then it is back to be rephrasing that and you being entirely in agreement:

Okay, what aspect of human interaction is not wholly in sync with cause and effect as prescribed by nature?

peacegirl wrote:Nothing. We are all obeying the law of greater satisfaction when meaningful differences between two or more alternatives are compared.

iambiguous wrote:As though our "greater satisfaction" is not in turn a necessary aspect of nature unfolding like clockwork -- with or without a clockmaker.

We are part of nature and its laws. We cannot escape from it, which is why will is not free. But that does not mean it is correct to say we were caused, for example, to shoot someone since nothing has the power to make us do this without our permission, or desire.

The fact that will is notfree demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has beenunconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during everymoment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he hadno free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to doanything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, isvery misleading as it implies that something other than man himselfis responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, itis that already. As long as history has been recorded, these twoopposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazingthing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, anddesires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions thatcriticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed tobe. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because themankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction whichmakes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to workat a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. Heactually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because thealternative is considered worse and he must choose something to doamong the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do whatthey did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore,when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against hiswill, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of ourexpressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciouslydishonest with himself and others because everything man does toanother is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave himgreater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason oranother; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is acompulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I amdoing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but makesure you understand this mathematical difference before proceedingfurther.”

iambiguous wrote:It's "beyond our control" to be in sync with nature. We "can't help it".

That's what I just said. We can't help but move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why our choices are beyond our control.

iambiguous wrote: But somehow that's not the same as a domino being in sync with it because dominos can't "choose" to be.

The end result is the same (we have no free will), but you can't use the excuse that nature forced a choice on you like a domino falling down with no will of its own. IOW, a person can't say he shot someone since his choice was wholly embedded. Only looking back in hindsight can a person say he had no choice, not before.

iambiguous wrote:The laws of nature would compel particular brains to define determisnism "normally". Just as the laws of nature compel my brain not to. Just as how your brain defines an "accurate" definition of determinism is compelled by whatever set into motion the laws of nature.

peacegirl wrote: That's true, your brain is compelled to define determinism one way, and mine another, but they are not that different in the most important sense (i.e., could not do otherwise) and do not have to create a stumbling block.

iambiguous wrote:If there are stumbling blocks how are they not entirely of nature's making?

They are of nature's making. I am just pointing out that this stumbling block is causing problems because you don't seem interested in any other definition but the conventional one, which is causing a lack of understanding. I will repeat: Once you make a choice, it could not have been otherwise, but nothing has the power (not nature, not God, not your mother, not your father) to force a choice on you, therefore you cannot say that nature caused someone to rob a bank. He robbed a bank because he wanted to; it gave him greater satisfaction under his circumstances. This is an important distinction which you won't understand until it is explained.

iambiguous wrote:Again, they are not stumbling blocks in the manner in which autonomous human beings view them. Why? Because autonomous human beings are able to actually get around them of their own volition. They accomplish this, whereas entirely determined men and women merely "accomplish" it.

We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of our nature. There is no way we can escape our heredity, environment, experiences, predispositions, life circumstances, where we were born, our culture, etc. which in turn influence our choices each and every moment of time. But you cannot say that these things "caused" you to make a choice. They created the conditions that led you to desiring one choice over another.

iambiguous wrote:...nature unfolds such that I was never not able to lead it to water and it was never not able to drink or not drink it. Only the horse's brain is not able to reconfigure its "choice" into a philosophical quandary like mine "chooses" to.

peacegirl wrote: That is true. Life moves in one direction only (toward greater satisfaction even if it's just scratching an itch), which is why no living creature has a free choice.

iambiguous wrote:Hmm. That sounds familiar. Just as the points I raise sound familiar to you. So, the "stumbling block" here is either within our capacity to move beyond or it's not. Meaning that if one of us does make a breakthrough and the other finally "sees the light" it was only because that was always going to be the case.

Obviously!

iambiguous wrote:Nature prevails! Again!!

As it always has!

peacegirl wrote:The only reason the terms are contradictory to you is because you don't understand how I'm using the term "responsibility".

iambiguous wrote:And the only reason I was not able to understand how you are using the term "responsibility" was because I was never able to understand it. Nature had other plans. Plans that are reflected only in her immutable laws. Laws that we still have no complete understanding of.

peacegirl wrote: We do have an understanding of determinism. We don't have to have a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws to understand some of nature's immutable laws.

iambiguous wrote:If determinism is embedded in that which explains a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws, how can we have a complete understanding of one without a complete understanding of the other? That makes no sense.

You're right, it makes no sense. Who in the world said that determinism is that which explains a complete understanding of "all of nature's immutable laws? It is true that the universe is not a free for all, but again the understanding of what this means in terms of our nature does not mean we are not free to choose that which we want, not what nature (as you place it) demands or forces upon us.

iambiguous wrote:Here I keep coming back to this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

This continues to boggle my mind. All this stuff about "free will" in a universe where the "immutable laws of matter" relect less than 5% [i]of the universe.

Or the multiverse?

Sure, shrug that part off. That's what all folks who have these grand understandings of all things do, in my view.

I'm not shrugging it off; I just don't know how it negates what has been observed on planet Earth, which to me is more important than any other theory about multiverses or life on other planets, or even what the universe is made of. You're throwing in everything but the kitchen sink.

iambiguous wrote:For example:

peacegirl wrote: Determinism, the way it's accurately defined, is one of them. What lies beyond this understanding is fantastic because it has the power to prevent war, crime and poverty on a global scale.

From my frame of mind, it is the believing in things like this itself that propels you into the future. A whole new progressive world if only others would grasp the author's points. Or, perhaps: If only others could grasp his points. In a world where nature and nature alone decides these things. Ultimately.

We decide things. Nature is what we are a part of. Please stop separating nature from our ability to choose, as if it's a separate entity that we have no say in.

peacegirl wrote:All I am showing is that this law of our nature, when applied to our environment, will cause us to veer in a new direction but still in keeping with deterministic law.

iambiguous wrote:That is how I would put it. We veer or do not veer because we must. We want or do not want to injure someone because we must. The consequences are what they are because that is quite simply nature's way.

Nothing at all that unfolds is other than as nature compelled it to.

Nature meaning ourselves. Nature unfolds the way it is compelled to, which only means our choices unfold in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is nature unfolding as it must.

peacegirl wrote: True, and as we understand how to prevent conflict and create cooperation, this unfolding is also nothing other than as nature compels it to be. Today, some want to injure as they must. Tomorrow, they will be compelled to not injure as they must. Same nature, but veering in a different direction as it must.

iambiguous wrote:How we both agree and disagree about the very same things! That's what fascinates me. In many ways, you reflect what I imagine a wholly determined universe is. But then we imagine the consequences of it in very different ways.

The consequences are part of the stream of nature's law, but due to the fact that we are not dominoes, we can change our course and still be subjected to nature's law. I don't quite understand what you disagree with.

iambiguous wrote:The future is as it must be but it must be more progressive if nature compells enough people to read the author's book. This makes sense to you in a way that does not to me. I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that I still have no capacity [autonomous or not] to grasp it here and now.

It's very simple. It is what it is. People will move in the direction of interest or they won't, all in keeping with deterministic law. Nature cannot compel you to read the book anymore than Gandhi could have chosen to give up his fight for freedom.

iambiguous wrote:Thus:

iambiguous wrote:Others are compelled to either read [the author] or not. But either way, the future [like the present] is already inherently a continuation of the past. Once nature's laws set us in motion we are only ever going to "choose" what must be.

That is true iambiguous, but we are not dominoes that have no choice. It seems like you close your ears to anything I'm saying and you revert right back to the same refrain over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The repetition doesn't change the fact that we get to choose, although our choice is never free.

peacegirl wrote: I'm having difficulty with this because what you are saying in so many words is back to having no choice because nature (as if nature is something other than ourselves) is forcing our choices. Obviously, the future is a continuation of antecedent events, our heredity, and our experiences.

iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that men and women here on earth don't choose behaviors that propel the future in one or another direction, only that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now, they have no option, no capacity to actually choose anything other than what nature's laws compel them to "choose". At least in our 5% of the universe.

Not only am I compelled to "choose" not to read it but I am compelled in turn to note that your own assumptions regarding "peace and brotherhood" in the future are just existential contraptions, rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. And, as well, in the assumption that we do have some measure of autonomy in choosing to understand them as we do.

peacegirl wrote: Man has the ability to think, to create, to observe, and to discover. Call it autonomy if you like. The label you give it doesn't matter. It's the reality behind the label that counts. I'm not sure why you call the claim that peace and brotherhood are within our reach, just assumptions. You have no basis for this comment other than your opinion and your belief that peace is impossible. You are dead wrong.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, to say that human beings have the capacity to think, to create, to observe, and to discover is merely to acknowledge that you were compelled to think, feel and say that here and now. And that, in turn, how I and others react to it is no less compelled by the laws of nature. And that whatever I call it I was never able to not call it. And thus the "basis" for all of this is determinism.

That is true but why keep repeating it? You're preaching to the choir.

iambiguous wrote:And I'm not saying that peace is impossible. I am merely pointing out that it will be predicated on those who have the capacity to enforce particular sets of behaviors in particular contexts.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler might have conquered the world way back when and the world war would have been over. Peace would prevail.

Not what some would call a "progressive" peace, but peace none the less.

This was not a true call for peace. This was a power play due to Hitler's ideological beliefs and using the Jews as a scapegoat. It could not have been any different but that does not mean the same scenario in the here and now has to occur again since we are all changing our perspectives about the causes that lead to brainwashing on a large scale.

iambiguos wrote:But in an autonomous universe we would at least have the capacity to judge that peace from conflicting moral and political narratives. Whereas in a wholly determined universe Hitler was no more flawed in his thinking than those who fought against him.

The Holocaust simple was what it could only ever have been.

And it is the implications of this that [I would imagine] most deeply disturb the free will folks among us.

I get that. It's not a matter of being flawed in the deepest sense knowing that the Holocaust had to occur based on thesign of the times. The world was ripe for such a happening. Hitler has now become a symbol for evil. The truth is that he could not have chosen any differently than what he did. The author of Decline and Fall of All Evil was a Jew yet he was quite clear in his understanding that Hitler and his philosophy of hatred against the Jews was based on hisability to find a scapegoat.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, andall the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in adifferent direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders andtheir subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite insuch a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this isdifficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss whatI have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I triedto prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And thereason must be that you judged such a permanent solution asimpossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, whichis a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed andcompared to our present understanding of human nature. War seemsto be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can onlybe subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question markbetween the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of humanlife as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is asociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as anunfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due tosuffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream orhave the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that hismind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone whodares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous andunfounded.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

promethean75 wrote:you probably ought to stop reading that book, peacegirl, because if it's responsible for putting into your head this confusing version of compatibalism that you seem to be espousing (without knowing it), you're going to either a) remain in a state of confusion indefinitely, or b) hit yourself in the head once/if you finally understand how all this is nonsense, and curse yourself for the time you wasted.

You're so off-base it's ridiculous. This is NOT a version of compatibilism

promethean75 wrote:what iambiguous is saying is nauseatingly simple to understand and i can't imagine why you aren't getting it. all these factors which you introduce as things free from causality, i.e., 'desire for greater satisfaction' or 'desiring one choice over another', are just as much subject to casually sufficient antecedent conditions as anything else in the universe. if determinism is true, NOTHING is 'free'... not your desires, not your particular conditions for greater satisfaction, not your deciding one choice over another. everything going on in your brain is compelled to be in a particular state, a particular way, by the state of events that preceded it, and so on to infinity (or a first cause, if you want to go that route... but i wouldn't).

It's not me that's not getting it, it's you! I have always agreed that nothing is free from causality, but the word cause is misleading for it implies that something other than you yourself is forcing a choice upon you in advance. That is called a modal fallacy. This may help a little even though this professor believes that because we're not forced, we have free will. Lots of people are confused on this issue.

Proposal Three: The truth of propositions does not 'make' events happen (occur).

Consider: My wearing a short-sleeved shirt today [Oct. 28] is what makes (the proposition expressed by) "Swartz is wearing a short-sleeved shirt on Oct. 28, 1997" true. It is not the other way round. Logical fatalism confuses the semantic (truth-making) order. It makes it appear that the truth of a proposition 'causes' an event to occur. It is, rather, that the event's occurring tomorrow 'makes' (but does not cause) the proposition to be true today. This is not 'backwards causation': the relation between an event and the truth of the proposition describing that event is not a causal relation whatever. It is a semantic relation.

The logic of the preceding paragraph can perhaps be made apparent by switching the example to one of speaking about the past rather than the future.

John Lennon was shot and killed in 1980. Let's suppose a group of ten persons is arguing about the year of his death. Alice says that it was 1976; Betty, that it was 1977; Cathy, that it was 1978; Denise, that it was 1979; Edith, that it was 1980; Freda, that it was 1981; etc.

Of the ten claims made, only Edith's is true. The other nine are false. Now ask yourself: Does Edith's making a true claim today (about the year of Lennon's death) account for Lennon's killing? Did Edith's asserting a truth today about Lennon's killing somehow or other 'force' Mark David Chapman to fire five bullets into Lennon's chest? Of course not. Now what if the year of the discussion were 1975? Alex says, "Lennon will be killed in 1976." Bellamy says that it will happen in 1977. Charles, that it will happen in 1978. Damien, that it will happen in 1979. Eduardo, that it will happen in 1980. Frank, that it will happen in 1981. Graham, that it will happen in 1982. Etc. Of the ten discussants, one, namely Eduardo, gets it 'right'; the other nine make false predictions. Does Eduardo's true prediction (in 1975) somehow or other 'force' Mark David Chapman to fire five bullets into Lennon's chest five years later, in 1980? Of course not.

Similarly you and I can make all sorts of predictions – some true, some false, some on the basis of excellent evidence ("There will be a lunar eclipse on Sept. 19, 2499"), some on the basis of no evidence whatever ("Simon Fraser University will remove all tuition fees in 1999") – but those that are true do not 'force' the predicted events to occur.

Ambiguous keeps saying the laws of matter made him repeat his comments. These laws don't have the power to do that unless he desires to repeat his comments in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is also beyond his control. His idea of autonomy takes him out of necessity, into contingency. But the interesting point here is that "greater satisfaction" is not based on a modal fallacy, therefore the distinction he is making between autonomy and the laws of matter are contrived based on an inaccurate definition. Our movement in the direction of satisfaction is part of our brain state, true, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that nothing other than OURSELVES (the "I" that distinguish us from others) can force us to make a particular choice...where the agent or self has no say. That is what the present definition of determinism implies. Once again, you can't say nature forced me to make the choice therefore I'm not responsible. You are not responsible because you could not have chosen otherwise based on your heredity and environment. This is important because it has to do with who was responsible for making said choice, not morally responsible which goes back to the free will (or the "could have done otherwise") that compatibilists use to justify blame and punishment.

promethean75 wrote:so when you think to yourself 'gosh i think i should choose x rather than y because it would lead to greater satisfaction', you aren't free to decide you would be more satisfied by choosing x. you have become conditioned to be more satisfied when x, and those forces that engendered in you the experience of satisfaction when x, were never under your control... much less a matter of you choice.

That's exactly right. Think about it this way: If you are not free to choose "y" because it gives you less satisfaction under the circumstances, you are not free to choose "x". You 're correct that the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose x or y equally, which cannot be done when we are comparing meaningful differences. This IS an invariable law.

promethean5 wrote:this book your are reading is pushing a compatibalist idea that was refuted a hundred years ago or more, and there is nothing new or groundbreaking in it, i can promise you (without even reading it).

I know you haven't read it by what you're saying, so how can you be so sure that there is nothing new here? I can promise you this is groundbreaking and it has nothing to do with compatibilism. Compatibilism tries to have its cake and eat it too by defining the word "free" in a way that does not grant us free will at all. It's just their way of defining a word to make it seem compatible, but it is anything but. It states that the person who was not under duress was free not to do what he did, which is absolutely false. This is the antithesis of everything the book is demonstrating to be true . To repeat: Just because we do not have anything constraining our choice externally (like a gun to our head) or internally (like having OCD), does not in any way give us the freedom of choice that would justify blame and just desert. It is true that when we have a gun to our head, it appears that we don't have a choice because one choice (to do what the person wants and not get shot) is so superior than the alternative (getting shot) that no hesitation is required to decide which choice is preferable, whereas other choices need a more careful consideration. But this does not take away from the fact that in both cases we have a choice, although never a free one.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the lawsand then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of allresponsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that whichunder certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obviousthat a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but undercertain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those whoenforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but bothsides want to do what they consider better for themselves under thecircumstances.

The Russians didn’t have to start a communisticrevolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelledto do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us atPearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomicbomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniableobservation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurtanother in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what hemakes up his mind not to do. Since this observation ismathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has cometo signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because itsymbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and herelies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism andconfusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TODO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOTTO DO — but that does not make his will free.In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want tohurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will headmits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by hisenvironment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he makeany effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, hisparents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as thecause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himselfbecause absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do whathe doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he hasmathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but forthe first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”Another friend commented: “You may be satisfied but I’m not.The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethicaldoctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided byantecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon hischaracter. According to this definition we are not given a choicebecause we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event orcircumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me dowhat I make up my mind not to do — as you just mentioned amoment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, notenvironment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can makeme do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t bemade to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free?And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yetnothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would havethought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’tmake him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is amathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another whathe makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of hisexistence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend justpointed out, that man has absolute control over the former butabsolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move inthe direction of greater satisfaction.

It is true that nothing in the pastcan cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is thepresent; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptiverelation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almostimpossible task because it assumed that heredity and environmentcaused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed theopposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his ownaccord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is notcaused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must bepreferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, notmathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own freewill’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it becauseI wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I couldhave acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarilymisinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed foralthough it is correct in the sense that a person did something becausehe wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact Ishall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself whichonly means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how wordshave deceived everyone?

promethean wrote:a much more interesting subject would be a politically oriented discussion about what would happen, and how it would happen, if the doctrine of determinism were literally taught in schools and became as commonplace as the belief in gravity. that's what would catch my eye; the nervous fervor of the world that would result from the official abolition of the belief in freewill. i'd buy a ticket for that event in a minute. imagine the mayhem that would ensue (hopefully). it'd be the kind of monumental paradigm shift that would literally shake civilization. something that would force radical political changes or usher in a return to barbarism. in either case, we'd finally get some action worthy of attention.

What do you think I'm trying to do promethean? I'm trying to demonstrate how the world will look when we apply this principle. Why are you being so premature in your judgment, the very thing this author urged people not to do?

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

I have always agreed that nothing is free from causality, but the word cause is misleading for it implies that something other than you yourself is forcing a choice upon you in advance.

there is no 'yourself' here that is free from causality, therefore to introduce the intermediate position 'self' into a series of causal events is nonsense. think about this really hard; you're telling me that everything that's happening around me in the world is compelled by natural forces to be what it is, when it is, as it is, except this thing called 'choosing', which is a special kind of event unlike all the other events in the world, that is not subject to the same natural forces. this is the agency you're introducing here, the 'self', which you're saying is what is responsible for the physical actions of your body following the event of 'choosing'. you're saying that this 'choosing' somehow magically escapes and transcends the causality that affects everything else in the world.

you know who else did this? descartes. we call it substance dualism, and by that we mean that 'consciousness', or the 'soul', or the 'mind'... three words that are notoriously turned into metaphysical concepts by philosophers... and we say that this second substance is ontologically different from the other substance, physical stuff, and therefore exempt from the causality that the physical stuff is under the jurisdiction of. descartes had a helluva time explaining how these two things - the self and the world - can interact causally if they're two distinct substances... an impasse that spinoza later pointed out.

how does a 'choice' cause an ionized particle to cross a membrane? is this some harry potter shit because i didn't read the books or watch the movies.

so you're a closet cartesian (or 'clotesian') if you believe that 'choices' aren't also the effect of some prior state of affairs and/or events in the world, but instead a different kind of event that is caused by something other than natural forces.

the 'self' is nothing more than a kind of temporarily sustained bundle of sensations, perceptions and impressions. it's not some concrete thing that exists unaffected by the changing, empirical world. and just like every other natural process or body, it too acts, changes and develops under the influence of natural forces.

you're right... the premise 'something other than yourself is forcing a choice upon you' is not true, but not because it's false. no seriously. there are some statements that can't be true or false because they make no sense... and this is one of em. there is no 'self' in the philosophical sense that you're meaning it, so that statement can't be true... but it can't be false either.

the fact is, i could not have chosen to put ketchup rather than arby's special sauce on the curly fries i just ate, but this doesn't mean i am passive... because there is no 'I' here to be passive. the saucing of the curly fries - natura naturata - followed from the necessity of nature naturing itself... of the fries saucing themselves. remember what nietzsche said; there is no subject 'fries' and predicate 'sauced'. there is only the saucing. to separate the saucing from the saucer is only a convenience in language.

I have always agreed that nothing is free from causality, but the word cause is misleading for it implies that something other than you yourself is forcing a choice upon you in advance.

there is no 'yourself' here that is free from causality, therefore to introduce the intermediate position 'self' into a series of causal events is nonsense.

What the hell? There is no ghost in the machine that would allow for free will. Who is introducing an intermediate position of self that is not part of the deterministic process? I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU. If there's any problem with our communication, it needs to be improved upon because we're basically on the same page.

promethean75 wrote: to think about this really hard; you're telling me that everything that's happening around me in the world is compelled by natural forces to be what it is, when it is, as it is, except this thing called 'choosing', which is a special kind of event unlike all the other events in the world, that is not subject to the same natural forces.

I am having a hard time believing that this is what you've gotten out of my posts. The only thing I'm saying is that human beings are different than dominoes in that they have choices, dominoes don’t.

promethean75 wrote:this is the agency you're introducing here, the 'self',

Of course we have agency. Who else is making choices but you? When you choose what to eat for breakfast is it something other than you making the choice?

promethean75 wrote: which you're saying is what is responsible for the physical actions of your body following the event of 'choosing'. you're saying that this 'choosing' somehow magically escapes and transcends the causality that affects everything else in the world.

That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we are compelled to choose one thing over another if there is a meaningful difference, but it is not forced upon us by by a past event. We live in the present therefore everything happens in the present using our memory of the past to influence our choices in the present. To say the past caused us to act in a certain way is misleading. Where am I magically escaping from causality? The problem with the word "cause" is significant though. Have you even tried to understand what is being said before disputing it?

promethean75 wrote:you know who else did this? descartes. we call it substance dualism, and by that we mean that 'consciousness', or the 'soul’.

The fact that will is notfree demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has beenunconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during everymoment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he hadno free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to doanything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, isvery misleading as it implies that something other than man himselfis responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, itis that already.

promethan75 wrote:l', or the 'mind'... three words that are notoriously turned into metaphysical concepts by philosophers... and we say that this second substance is ontologically different from the other substance, physical stuff, and therefore exempt from the causality that the physical stuff is under the jurisdiction of. descartes had a helluva time explaining how these two things - the self and the world - can interact causally if they're two distinct substances... an impasse that spinoza later pointed out.

I don't know where you got the idea that this is dualism or two distinct substances. Everything we do comes from the brain but the mechanism that causes us to move in the direction of greater preference cannot be found through dissection. We cannot pinpoint greater satisfaction directly therefore it can only be observed indirectly through inference. There is nothing supernatural about this finding.

promethean75 wrote:how does a 'choice' cause an ionized particle to cross a membrane? is this some harry potter shit because i didn't read the books or watch the movies.

Why are you choosing to put "greater satisfaction" in the same category as a pool ball, or any situation that can be traced to a single cause? That's not the way human agency works because there are many factors that lead to greater preference. This is not that difficult to understand unless you are bent on proving him wrong without actual proof. It's sad that the people who have the greatest capacity to understand this simple equation make it more complicated than it is because they can't believe it's that easy.

promethean75 wrote:so you're a closet cartesian (or 'clotesian') if you believe that 'choices' aren't also the effect of some prior state of affairs and/or events in the world, but instead a different kind of event that is caused by something other than natural forces.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You are stuck in a certain way of thinking which makes it hard for you to grasp the simplest of explanations. Are you forgetting Occam's razor?

promethean75 wrote:the 'self' is nothing more than a kind of temporarily sustained bundle of sensations, perceptions and impressions. it's not some concrete thing that exists unaffected by the changing, empirical world. and just like every other natural process or body, it too acts, changes and develops under the influence of natural forces.

Absolutely, but we are not caused to do anything without our permission. That's all I'm saying but you're making much to do about nothing because you can't believe it's that easy. If a well-known philospher came onto this site and said this author was correct, what would you have to say then? You would respond differently.

promethean75 wrote:you're right... the premise 'something other than yourself is forcing a choice upon you' is not true, but not because it's false. no seriously. there are some statements that can't be true or false because they make no sense...

Huh? It is either true or false, because it definitely makes sense. Determinism, as it's presently defined, implies that we have no choice due to the fact that the choice has already been made since the Big Bang rendering us impotent and making a mockery of contemplation.

promethean75 wrote:and this is one of em. there is no 'self' in the philosophical sense that you're meaning it, so that statement can't be true... but it can't be false either.

There is definitely a self that we call "I". We don't have to say each time that our biology, our neurons, our brains did this. We can just say 'I", as we can call a table a table without having to go any deeper in the table's make-up.

promethean75 wrote:the fact is, i could not have chosen to put ketchup rather than arby's special sauce on the curly fries i just ate, but this doesn't mean i am passive... because there is no 'I' here to be passive. the saucing of the curly fries - natura naturata - followed from the necessity of nature naturing itself... of the fries saucing themselves. remember what nietzsche said; there is no subject 'fries' and predicate 'sauced'. there is only the saucing. to separate the saucing from the saucer is only a convenience in language.

Just because this idea came from a respected philosopher such as Nietzsche does not make it right. I am different from you. Ketchup is different from arby's special sauce, and you cannot use the excuse that you are the killer and the victim because there is no difference. Language plays an important part to distinguish real objects from another. There is a definite separation because these items are separate entities that language is identifying. Language doesn't create an artificial division unless the word being used to describe an object has no real object to describe. This is like creating heaven using the word when no such corresponding accuracy can be detected in the real world.

Last edited by peacegirl on Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

To repeat: Just because we do not have anything constraining our choice externally (like a gun to our head) or internally (like having OCD), does not in any way give us the freedom of choice that would justify blame and just desert. It is true that when we have a gun to our head, it appears that we don't have a choice because one choice (to do what the person wants and not get shot) is so superior than the alternative (getting shot) that no hesitation is required to decide which choice is preferable, whereas other choices need a more careful consideration. But this does not take away from the fact that in both cases we have a choice, although never a free one.

i'm saying technically we don't have a choice... at least not what you think is a choice and what choosing entails.

when we are faced with making a decision we imagine in our heads at least two possible future events; i'm sitting here and i'm thinking about standing up. i can picture in my head what it would be like for me to stand up because i've stood up many times before. i know that standing up is a logically possible future event, just like remaining seated. but to say it is actually possible is something i cannot know, so i cannot say the possibility of standing up presents itself as a choice. there can't be both events in the future - i stand up and remain seated - and neither can i know that i can stand up until i do stand up. again, it's logically possible that i can stand up, but it might not be actually possible, because for all i know, the arrow of time in this particular reality might lead to the event 'remaining seated' instead of standing up.

so having a 'choice' really means something like this; imagining in your head a past event one was involved in and recognizing that it is logically possible for a similar event to occur again in the future. when i'm getting ready to choose to stand up, i'm not suspending a causal chain of events so that it has to wait on my decision before it can continue in one of two or more directions. i don't actually have a 'choice' in the sense of being able to make the chain proceed in one direction rather than another. it's only because i've stood up before that i can imagine it happening again in a logically possible future reality.

this...

MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TODO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOTTO DO — but that does not make his will free.In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want tohurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will headmits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by hisenvironment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he makeany effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, hisparents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as thecause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himselfbecause absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do whathe doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he hasmathematical control.

is talking in circles. specifically this phrase: 'he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himselfbecause absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what he doesn’t want to do'.

what he wants to do, he cannot choose to want... and since the same causality responsible for making him want something, compels him to act, it cannot be said to be 'forcing him against his will', because that would mean that causality were fighting against itself; that his will follows one kind of causality while his acts follow another. it divides causality into two types; one type governs the movement of physical bodies in space, and the other governs the 'will', which is not 'forced' by the former type of causality.

maybe now you're starting to see the cartesianism i mentioned earlier emerging in this kind thinking. forget about the 'will'. there is no entity 'will', no 'self' that stands above and beyond causality such that it can 'decide' to do what it wants.

there is no 'for or against' the will because there is no will in the way that vitalists use the term in philosophy. there is a single will pervading throughout the entire universe, and this will expresses itself in the various modes and modifications that substance takes the form of. therefore, because these modes and modifications all fall under the operandi of a single causality, they cannot be in conflict with one another. ergo; there is no 'battle of individual wills'. 'conflict', the idea of it, is an example of inadequate knowledge of how things work... usually based on a standard of some form of pleasure/pain; we are on conflict when we experience pain, and not when we experience pleasure. but these 'conflicts' are not indicative of the actual order of things and do not express a breakdown in the harmony of order.

this might shock you... but nothing is evil, and everything is good. the more an acquisition of the power and capacity to act is granted, the greater a thing is. some modes are determined to acquire more power than others, and it is at the expense of these greater modes that morality was invented. morality is the objection to the pain experienced during a causal interaction with something more powerful... and it has hitherto depended on the notion that the cause of the pain is the force of the stronger. this is the origin of resentment. in reality, it is the privation of the power of the weaker that is the cause of the pain. not that the strong has more force, but that the weak doesn't have enough. having less of a capacity to act is the origin of pain... not the capacity to act of the external body (one's 'offender'). morality springs from the offensive nature of what is external as the cause of the experience of emotion... rather than what is internal, a lack of constitution and capacity to act. every emotional state is a state of aggravation and confusion... of experiencing the body as either approaching or leaving a greater state of power and capacity to act. in this sense every 'complaint' is an expression of a misunderstanding of causality in addition to the experience of one's own lesser degree of power and capacity.

spinoza wrote:E3: DOA. Emotion, which is called a passivity of the soul, is a confused idea, whereby the mind affirms concerning its body, or any part thereof, a force for existence (existendi vis) greater or less than before, and by the presence of which the mind is determined to think of one thing rather than another.

Explanation.–I say, first, that emotion or passion of the soul is a confused idea. For we have shown that the mind is only passive, in so far as it has inadequate or confused ideas (E3P3).

I say, further, whereby the mind affirms concerning its body or any part thereof a force for existence greater [or less] than before. For all the ideas of bodies, which we possess, denote rather the actual disposition of our own body (E2P16C2) than the nature of an external body. But the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion must denote or express the disposition of the body, or of some part thereof, which is possessed by the body, or some part thereof, because its power of action or force for existence is increased or diminished, helped or hindered.

But it must be noted that, when I say a greater or less force for existence than before, I do not mean that the mind compares the present with the past disposition of the body, but that the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion affirms something of the body, which, in fact, involves more or less of reality than before.

you're going to ask 'what does this have to do with anything', and i'll respond 'everything... but it would take more effort than i'm willing to give at the moment to explain.'

To repeat: Just because we do not have anything constraining our choice externally (like a gun to our head) or internally (like having OCD), does not in any way give us the freedom of choice that would justify blame and just desert. It is true that when we have a gun to our head, it appears that we don't have a choice because one choice (to do what the person wants and not get shot) is so superior than the alternative (getting shot) that no hesitation is required to decide which choice is preferable, whereas other choices need a more careful consideration. But this does not take away from the fact that in both cases we have a choice, although never a free one.

i'm saying technically we don't have a choice... at least not what you think is a choice and what choosing entails.

when we are faced with making a decision we imagine in our heads at least two possible future events; i'm sitting here and i'm thinking about standing up. i can picture in my head what it would be like for me to stand up because i've stood up many times before. i know that standing up is a logically possible future event, just like remaining seated. but to say it is actually possible is something i cannot know, so i cannot say the possibility of standing up presents itself as a choice. there can't be both events in the future - i stand up and remain seated - and neither can i know that i can stand up until i do stand up. again, it's logically possible that i can stand up, but it might not be actually possible, because for all i know, the arrow of time in this particular reality might lead to the event 'remaining seated' instead of standing up.

Unless you are lame in some way, or something gets in the way of your standing up, you do have a choice. IOW, the choice to stand up is something that is feasible because people, of sound body, can stand up. This is different than thinking you can fly and choosing to jump off a building. Of course, there is always the possibility that your choice can be blunted by something unforeseen. In that case you would have to drop that as an option and make a different choice based on a new set of alternatives.

promethean75 wrote:so having a 'choice' really means something like this; imagining in your head a past event one was involved in and recognizing that it is logically possible for a similar event to occur again in the future. when i'm getting ready to choose to stand up, i'm not suspending a causal chain of events so that it has to wait on my decision before it can continue in one of two or more directions. i don't actually have a 'choice' in the sense of being able to make the chain proceed in one direction rather than another. it's only because i've stood up before that i can imagine it happening again in a logically possible future reality.

That is true. You are not suspending a causal chain of events from occurring because you don't actually have a choice in the sense of being able to make the chain proceed in a way that is counter to the choice made. That is why the word choice is misleading since you have no control over the direction your desire will take you. Knowing in advance that gravity will allow you to stand up gives you confidence that this choice is possible, so you move in the direction of pushing yourself to a standing position.

promethean75 wrote:this...

MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TODO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOTTO DO — but that does not make his will free.In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want tohurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will headmits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by hisenvironment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he makeany effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, hisparents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as thecause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himselfbecause absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do whathe doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he hasmathematical control.

promethean75 wrote:is talking in circles. specifically this phrase: 'he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himselfbecause absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what he doesn’t want to do'.

what he wants to do, he cannot choose to want... and since the same causality responsible for making him want something, compels him to act, it cannot be said to be 'forcing him against his will', because that would mean that causality were fighting against itself; that his will follows one kind of causality while his acts follow another. it divides causality into two types; one type governs the movement of physical bodies in space, and the other governs the 'will', which is not 'forced' by the former type of causality.

You are correct that it's the same causality. There is no causality that fights against itself. There is no contradiction between these two principles because they are both under the compulsion of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control.

Just because I cannot be made to dosomething against my will does not mean my will is free because mydesire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no freechoice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I didit of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actuallydid it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave meno free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

promethean75 wrote:maybe now you're starting to see the cartesianism i mentioned earlier emerging in this kind thinking. forget about the 'will'. there is no entity 'will', no 'self' that stands above and beyond causality such that it can 'decide' to do what it wants.

No one is saying that there is a will or self that stands above and beyond causality. But the word causality must be qualified, as many consider "to be caused" to mean "to be forced" against one's will.

promethean75 wrote:there is no 'for or against' the will because there is no will in the way that vitalists use the term in philosophy. there is a single will pervading throughout the entire universe, and this will expresses itself in the various modes and modifications that substance takes the form of. therefore, because these modes and modifications all fall under the operandi of a single causality, they cannot be in conflict with one another. ergo; there is no 'battle of individual wills'. 'conflict', the idea of it, is an example of inadequate knowledge of how things work... usually based on a standard of some form of pleasure/pain; we are on conflict when we experience pain, and not when we experience pleasure. but these 'conflicts' are not indicative of the actual order of things and do not express a breakdown in the harmony of order.

I agree to a point. We are all part of an original source but we are separate beings. As such, we have different genes and different environments. Even identical twins have different predispositions which lead to different behaviors under the same roof. To say that there is no 'battle of individual wills', 'conflict', is definitely an example of inadequate knowledge of how things work. Once we are able to use the knowledge that lies behind the door of determinism, conflict and battles of individual wills will no longer take place because we will have found a way to prevent the conflict and battles. Having pain does not express a breakdown in the harmony of order, because everything had to be. But that does not mean that we can't work toward eliminating emotional and physical pain and in so doing promote more pleasure.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone whodoesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in myideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that manshould not be blamed for anything he does which is true only whenman knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know,he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also receivedincursions of thought from this same principle which compelled himto turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to thecross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even inthe moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame themwhen he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew whatthey were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the othercheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsiblefor the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctlythat there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, toforgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possiblefor those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it intotal perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God forunderstanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion andreconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keepan open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show youhow this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

promethean75 wrote:this might shock you... but nothing is evil, and everything is good. the more an acquisition of the power and capacity to act is granted, the greater a thing is. some modes are determined to acquire more power than others, and it is at the expense of these greater modes that morality was invented. morality is the objection to the pain experienced during a causal interaction with something more powerful... and it has hitherto depended on the notion that the cause of the pain is the force of the stronger. this is the origin of resentment. in reality, it is the privation of the power of the weaker that is the cause of the pain. not that the strong has more force, but that the weak doesn't have enough. having less of a capacity to act is the origin of pain... not the capacity to act of the external body (one's 'offender'). morality springs from the offensive nature of what is external as the cause of the experience of emotion... rather than what is internal, a lack of constitution and capacity to act. every emotional state is a state of aggravation and confusion... of experiencing the body as either approaching or leaving a greater state of power and capacity to act. in this sense every 'complaint' is an expression of a misunderstanding of causality in addition to the experience of one's own lesser degree of power and capacity.

People are born with greater or lesser capacities. What causes pain is not having the basic necessities of life, as well as the lack of opportunity to advance.

spinoza wrote:E3: DOA. Emotion, which is called a passivity of the soul, is a confused idea, whereby the mind affirms concerning its body, or any part thereof, a force for existence (existendi vis) greater or less than before, and by the presence of which the mind is determined to think of one thing rather than another.

Explanation.–I say, first, that emotion or passion of the soul is a confused idea. For we have shown that the mind is only passive, in so far as it has inadequate or confused ideas (E3P3).

I say, further, whereby the mind affirms concerning its body or any part thereof a force for existence greater [or less] than before. For all the ideas of bodies, which we possess, denote rather the actual disposition of our own body (E2P16C2) than the nature of an external body. But the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion must denote or express the disposition of the body, or of some part thereof, which is possessed by the body, or some part thereof, because its power of action or force for existence is increased or diminished, helped or hindered.

But it must be noted that, when I say a greater or less force for existence than before, I do not mean that the mind compares the present with the past disposition of the body, but that the idea which constitutes the reality of an emotion affirms something of the body, which, in fact, involves more or less of reality than before.

promethean75 wrote:you're going to ask 'what does this have to do with anything', and i'll respond 'everything... but it would take more effort than i'm willing to give at the moment to explain.'

I'm not sure why you posted this excerpt by Spinoza. I don't see anything in his writing that negates these two principles?

This knowledge was not available before now and what is revealedas each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is somethingfantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is noaccident but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurtthat exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracleof transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT ITMEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws orprinciples — that nothing can compel man to do anything against hiswill because over this his nature allows absolute control, and that hiswill is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer ofavailable alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — willreveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference hasbeen made.

Last edited by peacegirl on Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:57 pm, edited 5 times in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

iambiguous wrote:No, the problem is that, given my own understanding of determinism, I can never not keep repeating it as long as repeating it is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

That's where you're confused. You can stop repeating it as long as you want to stop repeating it, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This then cues my point about how human wants and human satisfactions are in turn necessarily rooted in the human brain necessarily rooted in nature necessarily rooted in its laws of matter.

Then around and around and around and around and around we go. Necessarily in other words.

Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

Ironically, our only hope then is that we actually are autonomous beings able of our own volition to rethink each other's points.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explanable given a complete understanding of existence.

peacegirl wrote: You are incorrect. You and me may not be able to communicate, but that does not mean the truth of determinism cannot be understood. I maintain that this concept is not only wholly explainable but extremely significant.

I'm not arguing that. Again, what is considerably more obvious to me than to you is that an understanding of determinism is inherently embedded in an understanding of existence itself. And no one seems able to explain existence here and now. And you and I will be long, long, long dead and gone if and when it ever is.

Unless your "progressive future" includes a life for "I" after death. Does it?

iambiguous wrote:Again, they are not stumbling blocks in the manner in which autonomous human beings view them. Why? Because autonomous human beings are able to actually get around them of their own volition. They accomplish this, whereas entirely determined men and women merely "accomplish" it.

peacegirl wrote: We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of our nature. There is no way we can escape our heredity, environment, experiences, predispositions, life circumstances, where we were born, our culture, etc. which in turn influence our choices each and every moment of time. But you cannot say that these things "caused" you to make a choice. They created the conditions that led you to desiring one choice over another.

From my frame of mind [and "for all practical purposes"] this is still a difference without a substantial distinction. Either way you are only able to say that I am only able to say that these things "caused" me to make a choice. Instead, from my frame of mind, given a determined universe, nature caused me to make a "choice".

And then I still have no way in which to determine definitively if I either do or do not have any measure of autonomy in noting this.

iambiguous wrote:If determinism is embedded in that which explains a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws, how can we have a complete understanding of one without a complete understanding of the other? That makes no sense.

peacegirl wrote: You're right, it makes no sense. Who in the world said that determinism is that which explains a complete understanding of "all of nature's immutable laws? It is true that the universe is not a free for all, but again the understanding of what this means in terms of our nature does not mean we are not free to choose that which we want, not what nature (as you place it) demands or forces upon us.

Let's just say that we are talking past each other here. You make these claims regarding what is true about the universe when science points out that only 5% of universe as we know it today contains the kind of matter that might be subject to immutable laws. Including our brains.

You insist you don't shrug this part off but then you go on to make your claims anyway. Like the only thing in the universe that really matters here is the stuff that we make claims about on earth. Then you ask me to please stop making my own claims as though this is something that I am actually able to accomplish of my own volition.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, to say that human beings have the capacity to think, to create, to observe, and to discover is merely to acknowledge that you were compelled to think, feel and say that here and now. And that, in turn, how I and others react to it is no less compelled by the laws of nature. And that whatever I call it I was never able to not call it. And thus the "basis" for all of this is determinism.

peacegirl wrote: That is true but why keep repeating it? You're preaching to the choir.

And yet given my very point here I was never able not to keep repeating it.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler might have conquered the world way back when and the world war would have been over. Peace would prevail.

Not what some would call a "progressive" peace, but peace none the less.

peacegirl wrote: This was not a true call for peace. This was a power play due to Hitler's ideological beliefs and using the Jews as a scapegoat. It could not have been any different but that does not mean the same scenario in the here and now has to occur again since we are all changing our perspectives about the causes that lead to brainwashing on a large scale.

From my frame of mind, you are speaking of historical events here as though the participants were able to choose a "true peace", but, instead, like Hitler, "chose" a false peace. As though had the author of the book written it decades before the Nazis, the Holocaust might not have unfolded at all. Why? Because the right people might have "chosen" to read it and stopped the fascists in their historical tracks.

Or, sure, I am still just utterly confused about it all.

iambiguos wrote:The Holocaust simple was what it could only ever have been.

And it is the implications of this that [I would imagine] most deeply disturb the free will folks among us.

peacegirl wrote: I get that. It's not a matter of being flawed in the deepest sense knowing that the Holocaust had to occur based on the sign of the times. The world was ripe for such a happening. Hitler has now become a symbol for evil. The truth is that he could not have chosen any differently than what he did. The author of Decline and Fall of All Evil was a Jew yet he was quite clear in his understanding that Hitler and his philosophy of hatred against the Jews was based on hisability to find a scapegoat.

If the truth is "he could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, andall the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in adifferent direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders andtheir subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite insuch a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

This is simply unbelievable to me. He is telling us that in the future nature will shift gears and be entirely in sync with his own "progessive" assumptions about human interactions --- as though nature itself would have no choice in the matter.

Another reason that war is viewed as anunfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due tosuffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream orhave the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that hismind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone whodares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous andunfounded.

How are his perceptions of evil not entirely in sync with his brain being entirely in sync with the laws of matter being entirely in sync with human interactions [past, present, future] being entirely in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork.

Again, with or without the clockmaker.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:No, the problem is that, given my own understanding of determinism, I can never not keep repeating it as long as repeating it is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

That's where you're confused. You can stop repeating it as long as you want to stop repeating it, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This then cues my point about how human wants and human satisfactions are in turn necessarily rooted in the human brain necessarily rooted in nature necessarily rooted in its laws of matter.

Then around and around and around and around and around we go. Necessarily in other words.

You are the one choosing to go round and round, in the direction of greater satisfaction. And yes your choice to repeat over and over could not have been otherwise, but that does not mean you cannot change your response since there is no natural law prescribing in advance that this is what you must choose.

iambiguous wrote:Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

Ironically, our only hope then is that we actually are autonomous beings able of our own volition to rethink each other's points.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explainable given a complete understanding of existence.

There most likely will be no connecting the dots and that's okay. You will never agree that I can do something of my own volition without having free will. And I can have autonomy without having free will which only means I can be independent without the help of others.

peacegirl wrote: You are incorrect. You and me may not be able to communicate, but that does not mean the truth of determinism cannot be understood. I maintain that this concept is not only wholly explainable but extremely significant.

iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that. Again, what is considerably more obvious to me than to you is that an understanding of determinism is inherently embedded in an understanding of existence itself. And no one seems able to explain existence here and now. And you and I will be long, long, long dead and gone if and when it ever is.

Again, I reiterate that for the purposes of this discovery and its significance for the betterment of humanity, we do not have to understand all of existence here and now. Understanding the why of existence may never be fully understood by man.

iambiguous wrote:Unless your "progressive future" includes a life for "I" after death. Does it?

The "I" we are now won't be here, but he made an interesting observation regarding death. Interesting you brought that up.

CHAPTER TENOUR POSTERITY

There is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There arepeople who have suffered and died to develop this worldwho will not be around when the fruits of their labor haveripened to maturity.

“No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can Godbe a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’tthe thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make theman of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for theman of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’twant to get ahead of myself.”

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirelynew world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which isdemonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of humanrelation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is myfavorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well,my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderfulto know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plustwo equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only becauseit is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to anyhasty conclusion) you will always be here. Although the basicprinciple has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst throughthe labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it didnot help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used toreveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perceptionof undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by thehand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, thatthere is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be bornagain and again and again. This does not mean what you might thinkit means because the life you live and are conscious of right now hasno relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life.Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world ofsouls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body aliveand conscious of existence as you are this moment.

iambiguous wrote:Again, they are not stumbling blocks in the manner in which autonomous human beings view them. Why? Because autonomous human beings are able to actually get around them of their own volition. They accomplish this, whereas entirely determined men and women merely "accomplish" it.

peacegirl wrote: We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of our nature. There is no way we can escape our heredity, environment, experiences, predispositions, life circumstances, where we were born, our culture, etc. which in turn influence our choices each and every moment of time. But you cannot say that these things "caused" you to make a choice. They created the conditions that led you to desiring one choice over another.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [and "for all practical purposes"] this is still a difference without a substantial distinction. Either way you are only able to say that I am only able to say that these things "caused" me to make a choice. Instead, from my frame of mind, given a determined universe, nature caused me to make a "choice".

The only thing the principle that "nothing can make a person do anything against his will" does is it places the responsibility for a choice where it belongs (i.e., on the person who made the choice). If I push the accelerator and run a red light, I made the choice to push the accelerator. I wasn't forced against my will to push the accelerator. You keep saying nature made you make the choice, as if you and nature aren't one and the same.

iambiguous wrote:And then I still have no way in which to determine definitively if I either do or do not have any measure of autonomy in noting this.

iambiguous wrote:If determinism is embedded in that which explains a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws, how can we have a complete understanding of one without a complete understanding of the other? That makes no sense.

As I stated above, we really don't need to have a complete understanding of all of nature's immutable laws that are based on determinism to have a powerful enough understanding of determinism to make great strikes here on earth.

peacegirl wrote: You're right, it makes no sense. Who in the world said that determinism is that which explains a complete understanding of "all of nature's immutable laws? It is true that the universe is not a free for all, but again the understanding of what this means in terms of our nature does not mean we are not free to choose that which we want, not what nature (as you place it) demands or forces upon us.

iambiguous wrote:Let's just say that we are talking past each other here. You make these claims regarding what is true about the universe when science points out that only 5% of universe as we know it today contains the kind of matter that might be subject to immutable laws. Including our brains.

I made no claims regarding what is true about the entire universe. The claim regarding man's will and how this truth can change our world for the better has no bearing on the 95% of the universe we know very little about.

iambiguous wrote:You insist you don't shrug this part off but then you go on to make your claims anyway. Like the only thing in the universe that really matters here is the stuff that we make claims about on earth. Then you ask me to please stop making my own claims as though this is something that I am actually able to accomplish of my own volition

.

I don't shrug off any part that matters here on Earth. What matters here IS that stuff that can help our world by claims that are true. I am asking nothing of you iambiguous. If you make claims that are in opposition to the claims presented here, I am not telling you to disregard yours. But if you do disregard your claims because you find my presentation more valid, this change of heart will be of your own volition (or desire) which does not in any way, shape, or form, take away from the fact that you made this choice not of your own free will.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, to say that human beings have the capacity to think, to create, to observe, and to discover is merely to acknowledge that you were compelled to think, feel and say that here and now. And that, in turn, how I and others react to it is no less compelled by the laws of nature. And that whatever I call it I was never able to not call it. And thus the "basis" for all of this is determinism.

peacegirl wrote: That is true but why keep repeating it? You're preaching to the choir.

iambiguous wrote:And yet given my very point here I was never able not to keep repeating it.

Once made, you were never able not to keep repeating it. I've said this many times.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler might have conquered the world way back when and the world war would have been over. Peace would prevail.

Not what some would call a "progressive" peace, but peace none the less.

peacegirl wrote: This was not a true call for peace. This was a power play due to Hitler's ideological beliefs and using the Jews as a scapegoat. It could not have been any different but that does not mean the same scenario in the here and now has to occur again since we are all changing our perspectives about the causes that lead to brainwashing on a large scale.

iamgiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, you are speaking of historical events here as though the participants were able to choose a "true peace", but, instead, like Hitler, "chose" a false peace.

Never did I suggest that the participants were able to choose a "true peace." Where are you coming from?

iambiguous wrote: As though had the author of the book written it decades before the Nazis, the Holocaust might not have unfolded at all. Why? Because the right people might have "chosen" to read it and stopped the fascists in their historical tracks.

No one is saying this. Nothing could have been any different than how it unfolded, so what is it that is causing you to come to these false conclusions? Of course, if the events were different the historical reality may have been different, but they weren't different so the Nazis era could not have been different.

iambiguous wrote:, sure, I am still just utterly confused about it all.

Not that confused. Just a little.

iambiguos wrote:The Holocaust simple was what it could only ever have been.

And it is the implications of this that [I would imagine] most deeply disturb the free will folks among us.

peacegirl wrote: I get that. It's not a matter of being flawed in the deepest sense knowing that the Holocaust had to occur based on the sign of the times. The world was ripe for such a happening. Hitler has now become a symbol for evil. The truth is that he could not have chosen any differently than what he did. The author of Decline and Fall of All Evil was a Jew yet he was quite clear in his understanding that Hitler and his philosophy of hatred against the Jews was based on hisability to find a scapegoat.

iamiguous wrote:If the truth is "he could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

They were fated to go to the death camps looking back in hindsight. But that does not mean that nature as something apart from us, prescribed this to happen. It happened because the people involved got greater satisfaction out of using the Jews as a scapegoat, because they were an easy target.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, andall the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in adifferent direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders andtheir subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite insuch a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

iambiguous wrote:This is simply unbelievable to me. He is telling us that in the future nature will shift gears and be entirely in sync with his own "progessive" assumptions about human interactions --- as though nature itself would have no choice in the matter.

Nature meaning the individual. No one has ever had a choice since the beginning of time. The only difference is that what gave greater satisfaction to hurt others in the past will be replaced by the desire not to hurt others as the preferable alternative. How this is accomplished is amazing, but you don't seem interested at all in understanding how this can actually become a reality.

Another reason that war is viewed as anunfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due tosuffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream orhave the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that hismind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone whodares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous andunfounded.

iambiguous wrote:How are his perceptions of evil not entirely in sync with his brain being entirely in sync with the laws of matter being entirely in sync with human interactions [past, present, future] being entirely in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork.

Again, with or without the clockmaker.

Everything is in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork, but that does not mean we are not co-creaters in what unfolds, as our choices, although unfree, play an important part in this inevitable unfolding.

Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:08 am, edited 5 times in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

but that does not mean you cannot change your response since there is no natural law prescribing in advance that this is what you must choose.

right, because we're anthropomorphizing nature when we say it can 'prescribe', just like we are when we use the word 'determine'. it's the ordinary uses of these words and their connotations that confuse the frick out of these arguments when they're used in a philosophical environment.

in every way that we use the word 'determine', there are grammatical elements involved that make no sense when we use the word to describe some aspect of nature. it's because of the family resemblance of the words 'cause' and 'determine' that leads to this overlooked misuse. subtle little intersections of meaning that evade us. like i might say 'joe is determined to go to the store' and mean 'joe has in mind going to the store'. but if i said 'the storm has determined the floods to happen', i couldn't mean 'the storm had in mind causing the floods.'

better to stick with 'cause'. so look... we can't say that nature prescribes 'in advance' what biggy will choose... but we can say nature is in way x such that in the next thirty seconds, the result will be biggy's choice y. we'd not say anything about being 'in advance' because nature does no 'determining' (does not deliberate), but we must say that given state of nature at time x, state of nature y was going to follow necessarily. which means, there is no 'choice' here, because biggy cannot prevent state of nature y.

but that does not mean you cannot change your response since there is no natural law prescribing in advance that this is what you must choose.

right, because we're anthropomorphizing nature when we say it can 'prescribe', just like we are when we use the word 'determine'. it's the ordinary uses of these words and their connotations that confuse the frick out of these arguments when they're used in a philosophical environment.

So does the word "free". The only "free" we are interested in regarding this argument is whether we are free to choose otherwise. If we could have chosen otherwise, we could then accept freedom of the will, but we don't have free will because we are constrained by our very nature (which we cannot escape from) to choose ONLY the alternative which we believe offers us the greater satisfaction of the options available, and there is only one choice that can be made each and every moment of time. Compatibilists try make a case that some choices are not free (if they meet the compatibilist qualification of no physical or emotional constraint) and some are. In their way of thinking people who make the wrong choice (according to the law) deserve retributive justice because, according to their way of thinking, they could have chosen better. This division between free and not free is a false distinction (because no one is free in a free will sense) which confuses the truth and allows for the the status quo of blame, punishment, retaliation, and just desert to continue without looking deeper for a better solution.

Promethean75 wrote:in every way that we use the word 'determine', there are grammatical elements involved that make no sense when we use the word to describe some aspect of nature. it's because of the family resemblance of the words 'cause' and 'determine' that leads to this overlooked misuse. subtle little intersections of meaning that evade us. like i might say 'joe is determined to go to the store' and mean 'joe has in mind going to the store'. but if i said 'the storm has determined the floods to happen', i couldn't mean 'the storm had in mind causing the floods.'

Promethean75 wrote:better to stick with 'cause'. so look... we can't say that nature prescribes 'in advance' what biggy will choose... but we can say nature is in way x such that in the next thirty seconds, the result will be biggy's choice y. we'd not say anything about being 'in advance' because nature does no 'determining' (does not deliberate), but we must say that given state of nature at time x, state of nature y was going to follow necessarily. which means, there is no 'choice' here, because biggy cannot prevent state of nature y.

The state of nature x can only predict state of nature y to follow necessarily if there is a direct cause and effect relationship like the storm causing floods. There is no choice. If I misstep and fall due to a tree branch I didn't see, cause and effect will force me to go down. But it's not the same with biggy. It cannot be predicted that biggy will necessarily choose y from state of x because there is no way such an accurate prediction can be made until biggy in fact, chooses y. There is no causal chain coming from nature forcing biggy to choose y, which the conventional definition of determinism implies and many philosophers object to. This goes back to the confusion with the word "cause", which is a misnomer since it implies that necessarily biggy must choose y even if y is not his preference. There is a subtle difference between saying "he was compelled, of his own free will (which only means of his own desire), to choose y because under the circumstances it gave him greater satisfaction (which is the only choice he could have made since he can't move in the direction of dissatisfaction)" in contrast to "necessarily he was forced to choose y because that is how it was programmed all the way back to the Big Bang even if the choice was against his will. No past event (even if it was a minute ago) can force us to choose a particular option. We make choices in the present based on the factors that are being considered. All this means is that there is nothing that says a person cannot alter his choice up to the instant a choice is made. Making choices based on contingency does not mean we have the kind of autonomy that frees us from the law of determinism or greater satisfaction. Due to the fact that man's will is not free, everything that has ever happened up until the present time was predestined to happen because we were never given a free choice.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:You are the one choosing to go round and round, in the direction of greater satisfaction. And yes your choice to repeat over and over could not have been otherwise, but that does not mean you cannot change your response since there is no natural law prescribing in advance that this is what you must choose.

Again, I can only imagine those truly autonomus aliens following this exchange. Here you are once again agreeing that I have no "choice" but to go around and around in sync with how nature has compelled me to embody a particular sense of greater satisfaction, and me necessarily insisting that this is only a nominal "choice" and not an actual autonomous choice like the aliens made to follow this exchange.

But that somehow I might "choose" to change my response as though that too is not just the embodiment of the laws of matter manifested in brain matter that has emerged necessarily from the evolution of life on earth.

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explainable given a complete understanding of existence.

peacegirl wrote:There most likely will be no connecting the dots and that's okay.

In a wholly determined universe there either are or are not connecting dots. The fact that you don't know for sure yourself merely reinforces my point about the gap between what you think you know about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known. All that can be known. And this is now deemed to be okay by you because nature compels you to see/feel/experience this frame of mind as reflecting a necessary sense of greater satisfaction.

peacegirl wrote:You will never agree that I can do something of my own volition without having free will. And I can have autonomy without having free will which only means I can be independent without the help of others.

If and when you are ever able to actually demonstrate this beyond merely asserting that it is true in a "world of words" I will be most interested in witnessing it.

peacegirl wrote: You are incorrect. You and me may not be able to communicate, but that does not mean the truth of determinism cannot be understood. I maintain that this concept is not only wholly explainable but extremely significant.

iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that. Again, what is considerably more obvious to me than to you is that an understanding of determinism is inherently embedded in an understanding of existence itself. And no one seems able to explain existence here and now. And you and I will be long, long, long dead and gone if and when it ever is.

peacegirl wrote:Again, I reiterate that for the purposes of this discovery and its significance for the betterment of humanity, we do not have to understand all of existence here and now. Understanding the why of existence may never be fully understood by man.

You will either be compelled someday by nature to grasp how ridiculous nature has compelled me to view this or you won't. How can the past, present or future not be profoundly intertwined in whatever is "behind" the existence of existence itself?

It would be like someone who has absolutely no understaning of an automobile as an actual entity being given a sparkplug and then asked to encompass what a car is. In other words, given all of the "unknown unknowns" that must stand between what we think reality is now and all that is yet to be grasped about it down the road.

But to think like that widens the gap considerably between the human condition as it is now and this fabled "progressive" future that you have thought up in your head. So, of course you going to shrug off those "unknown unknowns".

As for this...

CHAPTER TENOUR POSTERITY

There is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There arepeople who have suffered and died to develop this worldwho will not be around when the fruits of their labor haveripened to maturity.

“No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can Godbe a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’tthe thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make theman of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for theman of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’twant to get ahead of myself.”

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirelynew world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which isdemonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of humanrelation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is myfavorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well,my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderfulto know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plustwo equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only becauseit is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to anyhasty conclusion) you will always be here. Although the basicprinciple has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst throughthe labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it didnot help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used toreveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perceptionof undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by thehand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, thatthere is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be bornagain and again and again. This does not mean what you might thinkit means because the life you live and are conscious of right now hasno relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life.Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world ofsouls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body aliveand conscious of existence as you are this moment.

...how is it not just one more gigantic "intellectual contraption" bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true? Again, from my frame of mind, the whole point of "thinking up" an alternative reality to "brute facticity" embedded in a human existence that has no meaning or purpose behind it -- and that ends in the obliteration of "I" forever and ever -- is to create a psychological defense mechanism that allows for some measure of comfort and consolation in what can be a truly grim and gruesome "human reality" from day to day.

And, sure, to the extent that the author and you are able to actually believe it, more power to you.

peacegirl wrote: We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of our nature. There is no way we can escape our heredity, environment, experiences, predispositions, life circumstances, where we were born, our culture, etc. which in turn influence our choices each and every moment of time. But you cannot say that these things "caused" you to make a choice. They created the conditions that led you to desiring one choice over another.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [and "for all practical purposes"] this is still a difference without a substantial distinction. Either way you are only able to say that I am only able to say that these things "caused" me to make a choice. Instead, from my frame of mind, given a determined universe, nature caused me to make a "choice".

peacegirl wrote:The only thing the principle that "nothing can make a person do anything against his will" does is it places the responsibility for a choice where it belongs (i.e., on the person who made the choice). If I push the accelerator and run a red light, I made the choice to push the accelerator. I wasn't forced against my will to push the accelerator. You keep saying nature made you make the choice, as if you and nature aren't one and the same.

And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go. Then I'm back to this:

Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

If nature and "I" are one and the same then the accelerator must be pushed and the red light must be run. And if there are terrible consequences as a result of that, well, que sera sera...right?

iambiguous wrote:Let's just say that we are talking past each other here. You make these claims regarding what is true about the universe when science points out that only 5% of universe as we know it today contains the kind of matter that might be subject to immutable laws. Including our brains.

peacegirl wrote:I made no claims regarding what is true about the entire universe. The claim regarding man's will and how this truth can change our world for the better has no bearing on the 95% of the universe we know very little about.

How on earth can you possibly know this?! You can't even admit to yourself how crucial that relationship must be for grappling with determinism in that context which encompasses all of existence itself.

Instead, you wrap everything around that puny 5% that we still are a long, long way from fully grasping because that which you claim to grasp now is the part that comforts and consoles you.

iamiguous wrote:If the truth is "[Hitler] could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

peacegirl wrote:They were fated to go to the death camps looking back in hindsight. But that does not mean that nature as something apart from us, prescribed this to happen. It happened because the people involved got greater satisfaction out of using the Jews as a scapegoat, because they were an easy target.

Looking back in hindsight? How are we not in turn fated to look back at the Holocuast in hindsight only as nature compells us to? How is the greater satisfaction that we get in doing this really any different from the greater satisfaction that folks back then got in using the Jews as a scapegoat? Nothing is not compelled in a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or not compelled to understand it.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, andall the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in adifferent direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders andtheir subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite insuch a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

iambiguous wrote:This is simply unbelievable to me. He is telling us that in the future nature will shift gears and be entirely in sync with his own "progessive" assumptions about human interactions --- as though nature itself would have no choice in the matter.

peacegirl wrote:Nature meaning the individual. No one has ever had a choice since the beginning of time. The only difference is that what gave greater satisfaction to hurt others in the past will be replaced by the desire not to hurt others as the preferable alternative. How this is accomplished is amazing, but you don't seem interested at all in understanding how this can actually become a reality.

I'll tell you how I think the author accomplish it: in his head. Then it's only a matter of whether he could have chosen autonomousy to perhaps have accomplish something else instead.

Another reason that war is viewed as anunfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due tosuffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream orhave the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that hismind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone whodares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous andunfounded.

iambiguous wrote:How are his perceptions of evil not entirely in sync with his brain being entirely in sync with the laws of matter being entirely in sync with human interactions [past, present, future] being entirely in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork.

Again, with or without the clockmaker.

peacegirl wrote:Everything is in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork, but that does not mean we are not co-creaters in what unfolds, as our choices, although unfree, play an important part in this inevitable unfolding.

Let's just say that we are far, far removed regarding what "for all practical purposes" this tells us about human interactions out in a wholly determined world.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

peacegirl wrote:You are the one choosing to go round and round, in the direction of greater satisfaction. And yes your choice to repeat over and over could not have been otherwise, but that does not mean you cannot change your response since there is no natural law prescribing in advance that this is what you must choose.

Again, I can only imagine those truly autonomus aliens following this exchange. Here you are once again agreeing that I have no "choice" but to go around and around in sync with how nature has compelled me to embody a particular sense of greater satisfaction, and me necessarily insisting that this is only a nominal "choice" and not an actual autonomous choice like the aliens made to follow this exchange.

But that somehow I might "choose" to change my response as though that too is not just the embodiment of the laws of matter manifested in brain matter that has emerged necessarily from the evolution of life on earth.

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely pointing out the obvious: That, here and now, neither you nor I can connect the dots between the truth about determinism and the manner in which cause and effect itself is wholly explainable given a complete understanding of existence.

peacegirl wrote:There most likely will be no connecting the dots and that's okay.

In a wholly determined universe there either are or are not connecting dots. The fact that you don't know for sure yourself merely reinforces my point about the gap between what you think you know about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known. All that can be known. And this is now deemed to be okay by you because nature compels you to see/feel/experience this frame of mind as reflecting a necessary sense of greater satisfaction.

Connecting the dots in a way you believe is necessary not what is actually necessary. A discovery has been made and you refuse to want to know more about it. I agree, you cannot help yourself because your responses are part of your background and heredity that make you say what you say and believe what you believe, true or not.

peacegirl wrote:You will never agree that I can do something of my own volition without having free will. And I can have autonomy without having free will which only means I can be independent without the help of others.

iambiguous wrote:If and when you are ever able to actually demonstrate this beyond merely asserting that it is true in a "world of words" I will be most interested in witnessing it.

He has without a doubt shown that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering only one choice possible each moment in time. Will is not free, and you cannot escape this fact no matter how you try to make the case that autonomy or free will, or the ability to act or behave outside of natural law is a real possibility because you continue to define determinism as being nothing more than a domino without a will to resist being forced to do what you really wish you didn't have to do. I have no desire to prove anything iambiguous. You have a one track mind, and you are committed to creating a false narrative.

peacegirl wrote: You are incorrect. You and me may not be able to communicate, but that does not mean the truth of determinism cannot be understood. I maintain that this concept is not only wholly explainable but extremely significant.

iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that. Again, what is considerably more obvious to me than to you is that an understanding of determinism is inherently embedded in an understanding of existence itself. And no one seems able to explain existence here and now. And you and I will be long, long, long dead and gone if and when it ever is.

peacegirl wrote:Again, I reiterate that for the purposes of this discovery and its significance for the betterment of humanity, we do not have to understand all of existence here and now. Understanding the why of existence may never be fully understood by man.

iambiguous wrote:You will either be compelled someday by nature to grasp how ridiculous nature has compelled me to view this or you won't. How can the past, present or future not be profoundly intertwined in whatever is "behind" the existence of existence itself?

You're right, this isn't going to work. You are bringing into the equation something that is totally unnecessary. You are creating a prerequisite that is ridiculous because it's like saying I would have to know all the causes in a deterministic world to learn anything new, create anything new, or advance in anything new.

iambiguous wrote:It would be like someone who has absolutely no understaning of an automobile as an actual entity being given a sparkplug and then asked to encompass what a car is. In other words, given all of the "unknown unknowns" that must stand between what we think reality is now and all that is yet to be grasped about it down the road.

No one has to understand anything other than how to use a sparkplug in a moving vehicle, which is what a car is. Of course he would have to know what a car does to work on how a car can be better designed. He needs not know anything more about the existential reasons for why cars were created to make a better designed car. You're off base.

iambiguous wrote:But to think like that widens the gap considerably between the human condition as it is now and this fabled "progressive" future that you have thought up in your head. So, of course you going to shrug off those "unknown unknowns".

Um, I think our progressive future has come to fruition in many ways through all kinds of discoveries. How you call this fabled, I have no idea. I'm very well aware that there are unknowns. But the FACT that will is not free IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

iambiguous wrote:As for this...

CHAPTER TENOUR POSTERITY

There is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There arepeople who have suffered and died to develop this worldwho will not be around when the fruits of their labor haveripened to maturity.

“No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can Godbe a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’tthe thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make theman of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for theman of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’twant to get ahead of myself.”

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirelynew world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which isdemonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of humanrelation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is myfavorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well,my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderfulto know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plustwo equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only becauseit is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to anyhasty conclusion) you will always be here. Although the basicprinciple has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst throughthe labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it didnot help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used toreveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perceptionof undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by thehand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, thatthere is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be bornagain and again and again. This does not mean what you might thinkit means because the life you live and are conscious of right now hasno relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life.Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world ofsouls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body aliveand conscious of existence as you are this moment.

...how is it not just one more gigantic "intellectual contraption" bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true?

In your desire to be open-minded you are extremely closed minded and the antithesis of a true investigator. We all know you're not to blame so don't repeat yourself. You read one paragraph and you already have come to a conclusion that this is an intellectual contraption. You are lost in your own confused thinking which is the intellectual contraption you don't realize you are caught up in.

iambiguous wrote:Again, from my frame of mind, the whole point of "thinking up" an alternative reality to "brute facticity" embedded in a human existence that has no meaning or purpose behind it -- and that ends in the obliteration of "I" forever and ever -- is to create a psychological defense mechanism that allows for some measure of comfort and consolation in what can be a truly grim and gruesome "human reality" from day to day.

And, sure, to the extent that the author and you are able to actually believe it, more power to you.

You should not be reading this book. Please stay in your gruesome "human reality" if you feel this knowledge is just a psychological defense mechanism. It's anything but. I don't think there is any purpose to our continuing the conversation because you will only fight me without really taking the time to understand the principles.

peacegirl wrote: We cannot separate ourselves from the laws of our nature. There is no way we can escape our heredity, environment, experiences, predispositions, life circumstances, where we were born, our culture, etc. which in turn influence our choices each and every moment of time. But you cannot say that these things "caused" you to make a choice. They created the conditions that led you to desiring one choice over another.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [and "for all practical purposes"] this is still a difference without a substantial distinction. Either way you are only able to say that I am only able to say that these things "caused" me to make a choice. Instead, from my frame of mind, given a determined universe, nature caused me to make a "choice".

peacegirl wrote:The only thing the principle that "nothing can make a person do anything against his will" does is it places the responsibility for a choice where it belongs (i.e., on the person who made the choice). If I push the accelerator and run a red light, I made the choice to push the accelerator. I wasn't forced against my will to push the accelerator. You keep saying nature made you make the choice, as if you and nature aren't one and the same.

iambiguous wrote:And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go. Then I'm back to this:

Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

If nature and "I" are one and the same then the accelerator must be pushed and the red light must be run. And if there are terrible consequences as a result of that, well, que sera sera...right?

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. Nature is YOU and therefore being you, you cannot be forced to push on the accelerator and take the risk of killing someone, UNLESS YOU WANT TO. In a court of law they would not accept the excuse that nature made you hit a person because of running the red light. You hit the person because you desired to speed up, and the person became the collateral damage. Now you would be forced to pay for what you did. But before you push on the accelerator, you have a choice. Once you make the choice, it could not have been otherwise. But now there is a way to increase responsibility to such a high degree that under the same conditions you would never desire to take a chance speeding up, and the accident would be avoided as a consequence. But you're not interested in knowing how this is possible since you have already made up your mind that "for all practical purposes" there is nothing here that can change human conduct. Your mindset is in stone.

iambiguous wrote:Let's just say that we are talking past each other here. You make these claims regarding what is true about the universe when science points out that only 5% of universe as we know it today contains the kind of matter that might be subject to immutable laws. Including our brains.

peacegirl wrote:I made no claims regarding what is true about the entire universe. The claim regarding man's will and how this truth can change our world for the better has no bearing on the 95% of the universe we know very little about.

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can you possibly know this?! You can't even admit to yourself how crucial that relationship must be for grappling with determinism in that context which encompasses all of existence itself.

Instead, you wrap everything around that puny 5% that we still are a long, long way from fully grasping because that which you claim to grasp now is the part that comforts and consoles you.

No iambiguous. You are using the fact that if we cannot understand the entire universe we can't begin to understand anything. The 5% that we can know here and now is more important in the scheme of things than the 95% that we may never come to understand. We are a small planet but it's our home. Discoveries have been made that have improved our world and the human beings that live here. This discovery is one of them, and a very significant one.

iamiguous wrote:If the truth is "[Hitler] could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

peacegirl wrote:They were fated to go to the death camps looking back in hindsight. But that does not mean that nature as something apart from us, prescribed this to happen. It happened because the people involved got greater satisfaction out of using the Jews as a scapegoat, because they were an easy target.

iambiguous wrote:Looking back in hindsight? How are we not in turn fated to look back at the Holocuast in hindsight only as nature compells us to? How is the greater satisfaction that we get in doing this really any different from the greater satisfaction that folks back then got in using the Jews as a scapegoat? Nothing is not compelled in a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or not compelled to understand it.

The fact that you keep repeating what you know I already know is true and have agreed with umpteen times, is just delaying any productive conversation.

The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, andall the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in adifferent direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders andtheir subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite insuch a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

iambiguous wrote:This is simply unbelievable to me. He is telling us that in the future nature will shift gears and be entirely in sync with his own "progessive" assumptions about human interactions --- as though nature itself would have no choice in the matter.

peacegirl wrote:Nature meaning the individual. No one has ever had a choice since the beginning of time. The only difference is that what gave greater satisfaction to hurt others in the past will be replaced by the desire not to hurt others as the preferable alternative. How this is accomplished is amazing, but you don't seem interested at all in understanding how this can actually become a reality.

iambiguous wrote:I'll tell you how I think the author accomplish it: in his head. Then it's only a matter of whether he could have chosen autonomousy to perhaps have accomplish something else instead.

Tell me, how else could a discovery be made if not through someone's intellect (which is in his head) using astute observation and careful analysis as tools to create something new from things old? To say "in his head" the way you're using it is to be derogating due to your lack of understanding and misplaced skepticism.

Another reason that war is viewed as anunfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due tosuffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream orhave the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that hismind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone whodares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous andunfounded.

iambiguous wrote:How are his perceptions of evil not entirely in sync with his brain being entirely in sync with the laws of matter being entirely in sync with human interactions [past, present, future] being entirely in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork.

Again, with or without the clockmaker.

peacegirl wrote:Everything is in sync with nature unfolding only as it must like clockwork, but that does not mean we are not co-creaters in what unfolds, as our choices, although unfree, play an important part in this inevitable unfolding.

iambiguous wrote:Let's just say that we are far, far removed regarding what "for all practical purposes" this tells us about human interactions out in a wholly determined world.

This knowledge "for all practical purposes" is able to show the way out of misery, hatred, greed, poverty, murder, jealousy, and war (because of its ability to change every aspect of human relation from economics to child rearing, to the medical field) and you tell me without any understanding of this law and how its applied that you know more than the author did after 30 years of observation and careful analysis of what you think this discovery can do or not do. How absurd!

Last edited by peacegirl on Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 6 times in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Many people are masochists, they find joy on wounds being constantly afflicted upon them.

What does that have to do with anything? You can get satisfaction out of being a masochist.

Ecmandu wrote:In order to find someone willing to do this, besides themselves, they need to find sadists.

sadists don't like masochists, because the whole point of being a sadist is to derive joy by violating consent, which is hard to do to a masochist.

These are people who get joy out of hurting others. This is not something they were born with, which is what you're insinuating. I wasn't born yesterday Ecmandu. I know the depth of pain people can impose on others. These behaviors didn't come out of nowhere. The removal of these behaviors will also be eliminated when a changed environment produces changed behaviors. You're acting as there's nothing we, as a society, can do to prevent these type behaviors, but you're incorrect. When the environment that triggered these behaviors is changed, so will the behaviors.

Ecmandu wrote:The point is, people have mutually exclusive consents, or as iambiguous would say, conflicting goods.

Conflicts are symptomatic of a society where people are struggling to survive. Conflicting goods can be eliminated when everyone has their basic needs met. Self-preservation is the first law of nature and without it conflict is bound to occur.

Ecmandu wrote:So if everyone is seeking pleasure but everywhere you look you find polar opposites of what pleasure is, you don't have a solid philosophic principle.

Not only did you not discover anything new, which you brazenly claim is the newly discovered answer to world peace - you are also wrong.

This is not the pleasure principle. People do many things for greater satisfaction that have nothing to do with pleasure. You are the brazen one to come into a thread and claim that you know what you're saying when you don't know the first thing. You're all so arrogant. You give a bad name to philosophy.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

iambiguous wrote:In a wholly determined universe there either are or are not connecting dots. The fact that you don't know for sure yourself merely reinforces my point about the gap between what you think you know about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known. All that can be known. And this is now deemed to be okay by you because nature compels you to see/feel/experience this frame of mind as reflecting a necessary sense of greater satisfaction.

Connecting the dots in a way you believe is necessary not what is actually necessary. A discovery has been made and you refuse to want to know more about it. I agree, you cannot help yourself because your responses are part of your background and heredity that make you say what you say and believe what you believe, true or not.

How on earth can you possibly know what is actually necessary here given that the existence of determinism [as either you or I understand it] seems to be encompassed in only 5% of the universe that science has just barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding?

And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

and

2] acknowledging that I can't help but refuse to

This makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

iambiguous wrote:If and when you are ever able to actually demonstrate this beyond merely asserting that it is true in a "world of words" I will be most interested in witnessing it.

peacegirl wrote: He has without a doubt shown that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering only one choice possible each moment in time. Will is not free, and you cannot escape this fact no matter how you try to make the case that autonomy or free will, or the ability to act or behave outside of natural law is a real possibility because you continue to define determinism as being nothing more than a domino without a will to resist being forced to do what you really wish you didn't have to do. I have no desire to prove anything iambiguous. You have a one track mind, and you are committed to creating a false narrative.

See, that's our problem here. What I deem to be a discovery able to be demonstrated, you still confine to the definitions that the author gives to the words used in his "analysis" and "assessment" of these relationships. The part where this "world of words" is connected to actual human interactions able to be approached and understood through experiments, predictions and replicated results is no where to be found. Still.

And since there is seemingly no way around this for you, you shift gears and turn the argument into a critique of me. I have a one track mind. I am commited to a false narrative. While once again [no doubt] admitting that I was never actually able not to embody these things.

Thus [over and again]:

iambiguous wrote:You will either be compelled someday by nature to grasp how ridiculous nature has compelled me to view this or you won't. How can the past, present or future not be profoundly intertwined in whatever is "behind" the existence of existence itself?

peacegirl wrote: You're right, this isn't going to work. You are bringing into the equation something that is totally unnecessary. You are creating a prerequisite that is ridiculous because it's like saying I would have to know all the causes in a deterministic world to learn anything new, create anything new, or advance in anything new.

No, in a determined universe as I have come to understand it, I have necessarily brought into nature's equation that which you have necessarily attempted to debunk.

And, no, I am suggesting that one would need to have a complete understanding of existence itself before grasping the part that either determinism or autonomy plays in human interactions. That's just common sense to me.

And [in my view] you need to ask yourself why you seem [increasingly] compelled to attack me with these accusatory interjections. From my frame of mind [in an autonomous world] it is because you have invested so much of your own particular "I" [psychologically] in the confort and consolation the the author's argument has provided you. I am a threat to that. The intellectual contraption that the author has created is at risk of tumbling down. And I know of this calamity myself because my own objectivist contraptions are to this day still in heaps of rubble all around me.

"I" am fractured and fragmented here in a way that most folks will do almost anything to avoid. Both in terms of the is/ought world and in terms of all those really, really Big Questions that "I" will almost certainly go to grave without answers to.

iambiguous wrote:It would be like someone who has absolutely no understaning of an automobile as an actual entity being given a sparkplug and then asked to encompass what a car is. In other words, given all of the "unknown unknowns" that must stand between what we think reality is now and all that is yet to be grasped about it down the road.

peacegirl wrote: No one has to understand anything other than how to use a sparkplug in a moving vehicle, which is what a car is. Of course he would have to know what a car does to work on how a car can be better designed. He needs not know anything more about the existential reasons for why cars were created to make a better designed car. You're off base.

No, I am necessarily off base in a wholly determined universe as I understand it. I'm just grappling to figure out if, autonomously, I have the capacity to comprehend how you understand it. In other words, given those parts we seem to overlap regarding.

And what of those who curse the internal combustion engine in cars and yearn to create a "progressive" future in which mass transit is the primary means of moving us about? What will the future actually be? And what actual choice do any of us have in bringing it about?

iambiguous wrote:As for this...

CHAPTER TENOUR POSTERITY

There is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There arepeople who have suffered and died to develop this worldwho will not be around when the fruits of their labor haveripened to maturity.

“No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can Godbe a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’tthe thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make theman of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for theman of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’twant to get ahead of myself.”

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirelynew world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which isdemonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of humanrelation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is myfavorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well,my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderfulto know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plustwo equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only becauseit is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to anyhasty conclusion) you will always be here. Although the basicprinciple has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst throughthe labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it didnot help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used toreveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perceptionof undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by thehand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, thatthere is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be bornagain and again and again. This does not mean what you might thinkit means because the life you live and are conscious of right now hasno relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life.Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world ofsouls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body aliveand conscious of existence as you are this moment.

...how is it not just one more gigantic "intellectual contraption" bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true?

peacegirl wrote: In your desire to be open-minded you are extremely closed minded and the antithesis of a true investigator. We all know you're not to blame so don't repeat yourself. You read one paragraph and you already have come to a conclusion that this is an intellectual contraption. You are lost in your own confused thinking which is the intellectual contraption you don't realize you are caught up in.

Here [of course] you completely avoid responding to my question. How is this not "an 'intellectual contraption' bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true?"

Because in my view that is clearly what it is.

iambiguous wrote:Again, from my frame of mind, the whole point of "thinking up" an alternative reality to "brute facticity" embedded in a human existence that has no meaning or purpose behind it -- and that ends in the obliteration of "I" forever and ever -- is to create a psychological defense mechanism that allows for some measure of comfort and consolation in what can be a truly grim and gruesome "human reality" from day to day.

And, sure, to the extent that the author and you are able to actually believe it, more power to you.

peacegirl wrote: You should not be reading this book. Please stay in your gruesome "human reality" if you feel this knowledge is just a psychological defense mechanism. It's anything but. I don't think there is any purpose to our continuing the conversation because you will only fight me without really taking the time to understand the principles.

There you go again [in my view] reacting subjunctively in a manner in which I would expect someone who believes in free will might. Becoming aggitated that I am still refusing to grasp the importance of the author's discovery in a world where I am never able to react to it other than as I do. Which is as I must.

iambiguous wrote:And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go. Then I'm back to this:

Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

If nature and "I" are one and the same then the accelerator must be pushed and the red light must be run. And if there are terrible consequences as a result of that, well, que sera sera...right?

peacegirl wrote: YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

No, I still cannot get it. Not until nature compels me to get it. Maybe in the next post. Maybe on the next tread. Or maybe never at all. If "I" am not just along for the ride -- inherently, necessarily embedded in "nature's way" -- then, sure, I am not understanding -- defining -- nature and determinism correctly. Like I have any real choice to.

peacegirl wrote: Nature is YOU and therefore being you, you cannot be forced to push on the accelerator and take the risk of killing someone, UNLESS YOU WANT TO.

Which brings me to to this part. My latest contribution to your own Determinism thread:

Then we head in the direction that peacegirl always seems to go:

Someone might point out that we’re acting on our desires, which a computer doesn’t have. But as Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “a man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.” In other words, you might choose chocolate over vanilla, but you can’t choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla.

Frank S. Robinson from "Defending Free Will & The Self" in Philosophy Now magazine

Which is basically my point here as well. But she somehow sees this point as missing her point. And even though I am not able to not miss her point, I still seem to be "responsible" for missing it. In a way I am simply unable to grasp.

peacegirl wrote: In a court of law they would not accept the excuse that nature made you hit a person because of running the red light.

Yes, but in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, all of the proceddings in this court of law would no less unfold only as they were ever able to.

Right?

Obviously, once a choice is made it cannot be unmade. But if that choice was never able not to have been made in the first place...?

Everything in the courtroom is set in stone. If that "stone" comprises the immutable laws of matter [including the human brain begetting human consciousness beggetting human interactions] unfolding only as they are/can/must necessarily.

peacegirl wrote:I made no claims regarding what is true about the entire universe. The claim regarding man's will and how this truth can change our world for the better has no bearing on the 95% of the universe we know very little about.

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can you possibly know this?! You can't even admit to yourself how crucial that relationship must be for grappling with determinism in that context which encompasses all of existence itself.

Instead, you wrap everything around that puny 5% that we still are a long, long way from fully grasping because that which you claim to grasp now is the part that comforts and consoles you.

peacegirl wrote: No iambiguous. You are using the fact that if we cannot understand the entire universe we can't begin to understand anything.

That in my view is nothing short of ridiculous. Consider what our species thought it knew about that 5% of the universe 5,000 years ago. And what it knows now. How on earth could computer technology and the internet come into existence unless human knowledge of the seeming either/or world hadn't exploded over the past centuries?

But that still doesn't make the fact that the other 95% is still beyond the reach even of those who pursue knowledge using the scientific method.

What "method" have you or the author employed so far? You "think up" certain assumptions about matter [and a "progressive" furture] in that 5% and then shrug off the rest of it as really not all that important at all in fitting a complete understanding of human consciousness into existence itself.

We are expected to accept thinking like this...

peacegirl wrote: The 5% that we can know here and now is more important in the scheme of things than the 95% that we may never come to understand. We are a small planet but it's our home. Discoveries have been made that have improved our world and the human beings that live here. This discovery is one of them, and a very significant one.

...as being as far as it is necessary for our species to go. When, in my view, it is as far as you are willing to go in order to broach and then sustain considerably more psychological comfort and consolation than folks like me are able to.

Only, in a determined universe as I understand it, as far as you are willing to go is really just another way of saying as far as you are able to go.

iamiguous wrote:If the truth is "[Hitler] could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

peacegirl wrote:They were fated to go to the death camps looking back in hindsight. But that does not mean that nature as something apart from us, prescribed this to happen. It happened because the people involved got greater satisfaction out of using the Jews as a scapegoat, because they were an easy target.

iambiguous wrote:Looking back in hindsight? How are we not in turn fated to look back at the Holocuast in hindsight only as nature compells us to? How is the greater satisfaction that we get in doing this really any different from the greater satisfaction that folks back then got in using the Jews as a scapegoat? Nothing is not compelled in a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or not compelled to understand it.

peacegirl wrote: The fact that you keep repeating what you know I already know is true and have agreed with umpteen times, is just delaying any productive conversation.

No, the fact that I am not "for all practical purposes" able to not keep repeating myself until whatever propels nature to unfold as it must compels me to is the main point of my argument. As though it really is the "choice" that "I" make here that is holding things up!

iambiguous wrote:I'll tell you how I think the author accomplish it: in his head. Then it's only a matter of whether he could have chosen autonomousy to perhaps have accomplish something else instead.

peacegirl wrote: Tell me, how else could a discovery be made if not through someone's intellect (which is in his head) using astute observation and careful analysis as tools to create something new from things old? To say "in his head" the way you're using it is to be derogating due to your lack of understanding and misplaced skepticism.

Or: Tell me, how can someone's intellect not be entirely the product of nature having reconfgured matter through the evolution of life on earth into someone's brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter? How can anything created [old or new] not be entirely in sync with the same? Ditto for human understanding and skepticism. What on earth is not compelled to unfold only as nature necessitates it to?

Just as nature necessitated this:

peacegirl wrote: This knowledge "for all practical purposes" is able to show the way out of misery, hatred, greed, poverty, murder, jealousy, and war (because of its ability to change every aspect of human relation from economics to child rearing, to the medical field) and you tell me without any understanding of this law and how its applied that you know more than the author did after 30 years of observation and careful analysis of what you think this discovery can do or not do. How absurd!

Now let's see if nature can actually pull it off "in the future". In reality as it were.

My guess: Neither you nor I will be around to confirm it. One way or the other.

Unless, in some mysterious way the author hints at, "I" actually will be.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:In a wholly determined universe there either are or are not connecting dots. The fact that you don't know for sure yourself merely reinforces my point about the gap between what you think you know about these relationships here and now and all that would need to be known. All that can be known. And this is now deemed to be okay by you because nature compels you to see/feel/experience this frame of mind as reflecting a necessary sense of greater satisfaction.

Connecting the dots in a way you believe is necessary not what is actually necessary. A discovery has been made and you refuse to want to know more about it. I agree, you cannot help yourself because your responses are part of your background and heredity that make you say what you say and believe what you believe, true or not.

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can you possibly know what is actually necessary here given that the existence of determinism [as either you or I understand it] seems to be encompassed in only 5% of the universe that science has just barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding?

I already answered this. We are not talking about the entire universe. We are talking about man's will.

iambiguous wrote:And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

I'm accusing you of accusing me.

iambiguous wrote:and

2] acknowledging that I can't help but refuse to

This makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

I can point something out to you without accusing you of having a choice.

iambiguous wrote:If and when you are ever able to actually demonstrate this beyond merely asserting that it is true in a "world of words" I will be most interested in witnessing it.

peacegirl wrote: He has without a doubt shown that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, rendering only one choice possible each moment in time. Will is not free, and you cannot escape this fact no matter how you try to make the case that autonomy or free will, or the ability to act or behave outside of natural law is a real possibility because you continue to define determinism as being nothing more than a domino without a will to resist being forced to do what you really wish you didn't have to do. I have no desire to prove anything iambiguous. You have a one track mind, and you are committed to creating a false narrative.

iambiguous wrote:See, that's our problem here. What I deem to be a discovery able to be demonstrated, you still confine to the definitions that the author gives to the words used in his "analysis" and "assessment" of these relationships. The part where this "world of words" is connected to actual human interactions able to be approached and understood through experiments, predictions and replicated results is no where to be found. Still.

What he did was just a clarification of determinism. He didn't change the definition to mean something altogether different. The only difference he pointed out is that even though will is not free, nothing can make you do what you don't want to do. Many people think determinism means you have to do what you are forced to do, even if it's against your will. His clarification of determinism is correct. Remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

iambiguous wrote:And since there is seemingly no way around this for you, you shift gears and turn the argument into a critique of me. I have a one track mind. I am commited to a false narrative. While once again [no doubt] admitting that I was never actually able not to embody these things.

I am not critiquing you. I'm sorry you don't like my wording. I am only pointing out that you keep using the excuse that you can't help the way you respond. If you wanted to respond differently, you could. Nothing is stopping you but your desire not to change. To repeat: it is true that once you give a response it could not have been otherwise, but my correcting you may alter your response subsequently based on my response. We are constantly evaluating and reevaluating our responses based on input from the external world.

iambiguous wrote:Thus [over and again]:

You will either be compelled someday by nature to grasp how ridiculous nature has compelled me to view this or you won't. How can the past, present or future not be profoundly intertwined in whatever is "behind" the existence of existence itself?

You are in a world of words, not me. "Behind" the existence of existence itself is very arcane and makes it seem like there's no answer that could possibly be valid. I don't have to grasp the reason you view the importance that lies behind existence itself as necessary to understanding that man's will is not free and what this means for our benefit. It's not a prerequisite.

peacegirl wrote: You're right, this isn't going to work. You are bringing into the equation something that is totally unnecessary. You are creating a prerequisite that is ridiculous because it's like saying I would have to know all the causes in a deterministic world to learn anything new, create anything new, or advance in anything new.

iambiguous wrote:No, in a determined universe as I have come to understand it, I have necessarily brought into nature's equation that which you have necessarily attempted to debunk.

This author demonstrated a two-sided equation. Nothing to do with math, per se. What's your equation?

iambiguous wrote:And, no, I am suggesting that one would need to have a complete understanding of existence itself before grasping the part that either determinism or autonomy plays in human interactions. That's just common sense to me.

But that leaves you with a free floating "I can oppose you whenever you lean to one side." You don't take a position. I am taking a position because there is no such thing as free will, or autonomy as you like to put it, which only means the ability to think for yourself. Determinism doesn't prevent anyone from thinking for themselves, but you make it appear (by the way you interpret determinism to mean) as if you can't think for yourself (you're just a robot doing what nature causes you to do) if your will is not free. This is far from true. I can ask a question to a child and say to him, don't ask anyone else what they think. Think for yourself. Do you actually think this makes his will free?

Stop acting like a victim when you aren't one. You want me to turn the other cheek after you slap me in the face by your accusation that my interest in this knowledge is only a psychological defense mechanism.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [in an autonomous world] it is because you have invested so much of your own particular "I" [psychologically] in the confort and consolation the the author's argument has provided you. I am a threat to that. The intellectual contraption that the author has created is at risk of tumbling down. And I know of this calamity myself because my own objectivist contraptions are to this day still in heaps of rubble all around me.

You are no threat. I am not depending on you for anything. To be clear, you are making assumptions about knowledge you haven't read, or even cared to read. You don't see yourself. You are coming off as this innocent person who is being accused yet you accusing me of using this knowledge as a defense mechanism, nothing more. This is a serious insult which requires me to be very clear about who is striking the first blow. If someone strikes a first blow, the one being struck is justified to strike back.

iambiguous wrote:"I" am fractured and fragmented here in a way that most folks will do almost anything to avoid. Both in terms of the is/ought world and in terms of all those really, really Big Questions that "I" will almost certainly go to grave without answers to.

You can ponder the Big Questions all you want and never get a satisfactory answer. Maybe we're not supposed to understand the Big Questions. The Big Questions are existential in nature. Science, on the other hand, can catapult us closer to the truth with each new discovery, creating a better world for all. Socrates was known for saying, "Know Thyself" which we are at last getting to understand.

iambiguous wrote:It would be like someone who has absolutely no understaning of an automobile as an actual entity being given a sparkplug and then asked to encompass what a car is. In other words, given all of the "unknown unknowns" that must stand between what we think reality is now and all that is yet to be grasped about it down the road.

peacegirl wrote: No one has to understand anything other than how to use a sparkplug in a moving vehicle, which is what a car is. Of course he would have to know what a car does to work on how a car can be better designed. He needs not know anything more about the existential reasons for why cars were created to make a better designed car. You're off base.

iambiguous wrote:No, I am necessarily off base in a wholly determined universe as I understand it. I'm just grappling to figure out if, autonomously, I have the capacity to comprehend how you understand it. In other words, given those parts we seem to overlap regarding.

And what of those who curse the internal combustion engine in cars and yearn to create a "progressive" future in which mass transit is the primary means of moving us about? What will the future actually be? And what actual choice do any of us have in bringing it about?

You have the capacity to understand what I'm saying if you really take the time. This is not rocket science. The problem is your resistance to trying. We don't know how the future will unfold or the time it will take for this discovery to be brought to light. It will depend on many factors that cannot be predicted. Just like we didn't know that we would replace candles with incandescent light for most of our lighting needs. What does this have to do with the fact that will is not free and what this means for the betterment of mankind?

CHAPTER TENOUR POSTERITY

There is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There arepeople who have suffered and died to develop this worldwho will not be around when the fruits of their labor haveripened to maturity.

“No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can Godbe a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’tthe thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make theman of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for theman of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’twant to get ahead of myself.”

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirelynew world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which isdemonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of humanrelation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is myfavorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well,my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderfulto know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plustwo equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only becauseit is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to anyhasty conclusion) you will always be here. Although the basicprinciple has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst throughthe labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it didnot help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used toreveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perceptionof undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by thehand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, thatthere is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be bornagain and again and again. This does not mean what you might thinkit means because the life you live and are conscious of right now hasno relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life.Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world ofsouls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body aliveand conscious of existence as you are this moment.

iambiguous wrote:...how is it not just one more gigantic "intellectual contraption" bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true?

peacegirl wrote: In your desire to be open-minded you are extremely closed minded and the antithesis of a true investigator. We all know you're not to blame so don't repeat yourself. You read one paragraph and you already have come to a conclusion that this is an intellectual contraption. You are lost in your own confused thinking which is the intellectual contraption you don't realize you are caught up in.

iambiguous wrote:Here [of course] you completely avoid responding to my question. How is this not "an 'intellectual contraption' bursting at the seams with assumptions that in no way shape or form are actually demonstrated to be true?"

Because in my view that is clearly what it is.

Your view doesn't mean much when you have only read a paragraph and are assuming that because he didn't die, he couldn't know what death is. He found clues that demonstrate we are born again and again, not the "I" that is you now. This is a difficult concept but before you even read his observations, you immediately jump to the conclusion that this is "an intellectual contraption." These words you constantly use keep you at a distance so you don't have to do anything but repeat the same old refrain.

iambiguous wrote:Again, from my frame of mind, the whole point of "thinking up" an alternative reality to "brute facticity" embedded in a human existence that has no meaning or purpose behind it -- and that ends in the obliteration of "I" forever and ever -- is to create a psychological defense mechanism that allows for some measure of comfort and consolation in what can be a truly grim and gruesome "human reality" from day to day.

And, sure, to the extent that the author and you are able to actually believe it, more power to you.

peacegirl wrote: You should not be reading this book. Please stay in your gruesome "human reality" if you feel this knowledge is just a psychological defense mechanism. It's anything but. I don't think there is any purpose to our continuing the conversation because you will only fight me without really taking the time to understand the principles.

iambiguous wrote:There you go again [in my view] reacting subjunctively in a manner in which I would expect someone who believes in free will might. Becoming aggitated that I am still refusing to grasp the importance of the author's discovery in a world where I am never able to react to it other than as I do. Which is as I must.

I am allowed to be agitated, even if you couldn't react to it other than as you do. It doesn't matter. Our nature doesn't change just because we know will is not free. I am also reacting to you the way I am compelled to react to you. Determinism doesn't turn us into non-thinking, not emotional robots that don't have the ability to answer in a way that we see fit.

iambiguous wrote:And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go. Then I'm back to this:

Until nature compels you to reconfigure your argument into something that makes this part go away nature will continue to compel me to react as I do now.

If nature and "I" are one and the same then the accelerator must be pushed and the red light must be run. And if there are terrible consequences as a result of that, well, que sera sera...right?

peacegirl wrote: YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

iambiguous wrote:No, I still cannot get it. Not until nature compels me to get it.

Maybe if you stopped pooh poohing this knowledge and gave it a shot, you would get it. You're not allowing yourself to get it. I know you can't help yourself.

iambiguous wrote:Maybe in the next post. Maybe on the next tread. Or maybe never at all. If "I" am not just along for the ride -- inherently, necessarily embedded in "nature's way" -- then, sure, I am not understanding -- defining -- nature and determinism correctly. Like I have any real choice to.

All I can say is keep trying. Maybe you will get it someday.

peacegirl wrote: Nature is YOU and therefore being you, you cannot be forced to push on the accelerator and take the risk of killing someone, UNLESS YOU WANT TO.

iambiguous wrote:Which brings me to to this part. My latest contribution to your own Determinism thread:

Then we head in the direction that peacegirl always seems to go:

Someone might point out that we’re acting on our desires, which a computer doesn’t have. But as Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “a man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.” In other words, you might choose chocolate over vanilla, but you can’t choose to prefer chocolate over vanilla.

You choose chocolate over vanilla because you prefer it, but you can't choose what you prefer.

iambiguous wrote:Frank S. Robinson from "Defending Free Will & The Self" in Philosophy Now magazine

Which is basically my point here as well. But she somehow sees this point as missing her point. And even though I am not able to not miss her point, I still seem to be "responsible" for missing it. In a way I am simply unable to grasp.

No one said you're responsible for not understanding it. You are not responsible for slamming on the accelerator either and possibly killing someone. Your will is not free so who is blaming you?

peacegirl wrote: In a court of law they would not accept the excuse that nature made you hit a person because of running the red light.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, but in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, all of the proceddings in this court of law would no less unfold only as they were ever able to.

Right?

That should be understood by now, but that was not my point in explaining what happens in a free will society.

iambiguous wrote:Obviously, once a choice is made it cannot be unmade. But if that choice was never able not to have been made in the first place...?

The only way we can know that the choice was never able not to have been made in the first place is when we make it. We cannot determine that the choice was already made in advance of it being made, as if our choice was prescribed or fated to happen even if we didn't give consent to it. But we do have a choice every moment of every day, although the choice we make after deliberation could not have been otherwise.

iambiguous wrote:Everything in the courtroom is set in stone. If that "stone" comprises the immutable laws of matter [including the human brain begetting human consciousness beggetting human interactions] unfolding only as they are/can/must necessarily.

But don't you see, the courtroom is set in stone in the here in now. It is not set in stone that the court of law, as we know it, will continue to be the best procedure therefore it may be replaced by something better.

peacegirl wrote:I made no claims regarding what is true about the entire universe. The claim regarding man's will and how this truth can change our world for the better has no bearing on the 95% of the universe we know very little about.

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can you possibly know this?! You can't even admit to yourself how crucial that relationship must be for grappling with determinism in that context which encompasses all of existence itself.

Instead, you wrap everything around that puny 5% that we still are a long, long way from fully grasping because that which you claim to grasp now is the part that comforts and consoles you.

peacegirl wrote: No iambiguous. You are using the fact that if we cannot understand the entire universe we can't begin to understand anything.

iambiguous wrote:That in my view is nothing short of ridiculous. Consider what our species thought it knew about that 5% of the universe 5,000 years ago. And what it knows now. How on earth could computer technology and the internet come into existence unless human knowledge of the seeming either/or world hadn't exploded over the past centuries?

And information technology is continuing to explode without understanding the part of the universe we don't understand. Geeze!

iambiguous wrote:But that still doesn't make the fact that the other 95% is still beyond the reach even of those who pursue knowledge using the scientific method.

The point is we human beings are advancing by huge leaps and bounds within the 5% of knowledge that you say doesn't count for much.

iambiguous wrote:What "method" have you or the author employed so far? You "think up" certain assumptions about matter [and a "progressive" furture] in that 5% and then shrug off the rest of it as really not all that important at all in fitting a complete understanding of human consciousness into existence itself.

We are expected to accept thinking like this...

You're talking gobbledegook now. I have no assumptions about matter. The will of man is not free, period. This is not an assumption. A progressive future is based on this knowledge, which you have no understanding of. I never said other discoveries won't be made and we won't learn more about the universe, but what does this have to do with the discovery that I'm presenting? Nothing.

peacegirl wrote: The 5% that we can know here and now is more important in the scheme of things than the 95% that we may never come to understand. We are a small planet but it's our home. Discoveries have been made that have improved our world and the human beings that live here. This discovery is one of them, and a very significant one.

iambiguous wrote:...as being as far as it is necessary for our species to go. When, in my view, it is as far as you are willing to go in order to broach and then sustain considerably more psychological comfort and consolation than folks like me are able to.

Only, in a determined universe as I understand it, as far as you are willing to go is really just another way of saying as far as you are able to go.

Wow, you are continuing to make false accusations, probably because you can't wrap your head around the fact that this is a genuine discovery.

iambiguous wrote:If the truth is "[Hitler] could not have chosen any differently than what he did" how then were the Jews not fated by nature to be sent to the death camps? Surely, what would be construed by many of us as more horrible than the Holocaust itself, is the possibility that it is but one teeny, tiny manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever could going all the way back to the Big Bang. Utterly "beyond our control" as wholly determined men and women.

peacegirl wrote:They were fated to go to the death camps looking back in hindsight. But that does not mean that nature as something apart from us, prescribed this to happen. It happened because the people involved got greater satisfaction out of using the Jews as a scapegoat, because they were an easy target.

iambiguous wrote:Looking back in hindsight? How are we not in turn fated to look back at the Holocuast in hindsight only as nature compells us to? How is the greater satisfaction that we get in doing this really any different from the greater satisfaction that folks back then got in using the Jews as a scapegoat? Nothing is not compelled in a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or not compelled to understand it.

peacegirl wrote: The fact that you keep repeating what you know I already know is true and have agreed with umpteen times, is just delaying any productive conversation.

iambiguous wrote:No, the fact that I am not "for all practical purposes" able to not keep repeating myself until whatever propels nature to unfold as it must compels me to is the main point of my argument. As though it really is the "choice" that "I" make here that is holding things up!

You have a choice every single time you make a choice. You have a choice right now to stay or to leave this thread. If you stay, your choice in the direction of greater satisfaction is to stay. Don't tell me you had to stay because you didn't have a choice, and that the choice was already embedded in the laws of matter, which make it seem, the way it's expressed, that the choice was already made for you (i .e. that you necessarily must choose that option) which is exactly what compatibilists disagree with. There is nothing that says you must make a particular choice UNLESS YOU WANT TO. Don't you see that?

iambiguous wrote:I'll tell you how I think the author accomplish it: in his head. Then it's only a matter of whether he could have chosen autonomousy to perhaps have accomplish something else instead.

peacegirl wrote: Tell me, how else could a discovery be made if not through someone's intellect (which is in his head) using astute observation and careful analysis as tools to create something new from things old? To say "in his head" the way you're using it is to be derogating due to your lack of understanding and misplaced skepticism.

iambiguous wrote:Or: Tell me, how can someone's intellect not be entirely the product of nature having reconfgured matter through the evolution of life on earth into someone's brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter? How can anything created [old or new] not be entirely in sync with the same? Ditto for human understanding and skepticism. What on earth is not compelled to unfold only as nature necessitates it to?

Everything had to be just as it unfolded, but it's a modal fallacy to say necessarily you must choose to stay in this thread. You stay in this thread because it gives you greater satisfaction than to leave, not because you are being forced by the Big Bang that says you must follow a prescribed path if it's not your preference.

iambiguous wrote:Just as nature necessitated this:

peacegirl wrote: This knowledge "for all practical purposes" is able to show the way out of misery, hatred, greed, poverty, murder, jealousy, and war (because of its ability to change every aspect of human relation from economics to child rearing, to the medical field) and you tell me without any understanding of this law and how its applied that you know more than the author did after 30 years of observation and careful analysis of what you think this discovery can do or not do. How absurd!

iambiguous wrote:Now let's see if nature can actually pull it off "in the future". In reality as it were.

My guess: Neither you nor I will be around to confirm it. One way or the other.

Unless, in some mysterious way the author hints at, "I" actually will be.

No worries, you will be, not your posterity.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

iambiguous wrote:How on earth can you possibly know what is actually necessary here given that the existence of determinism [as either you or I understand it] seems to be encompassed in only 5% of the universe that science has just barely begun to scratch the surface in understanding?

peacegirl wrote: I already answered this. We are not talking about the entire universe. We are talking about man's will.

Does or does not "man's will" -- free or determined -- exist in the universe? Is there or is there not a definitive explanation for that?

And how on earth could this not be profoundly intertwined in the things we are discussing here? It's just plain silly to me to argue that one isn't integral to the other.

Besides, I asked and you answered in accordance with whatever that explanation might be. But: Only if the human brain is even capable of grasping something like that. Given that in some capacity the conscious mind is able to pursue it with some measure of autonomy.

iambiguous wrote:And then back again to...

1] accusing me of refusing to want to know about this discovery

peacegirl wrote: I'm accusing you of accusing me.

Who cares if any and all accusations made by mere mortals are what they were only ever able to be.

iambiguous wrote:and

2] acknowledging that I can't help but refuse to

This makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

peacegirl wrote: I can point something out to you without accusing you of having a choice.

Who cares if everything we point out is only as we ever could have pointed it out.

iambiguous wrote:See, that's our problem here. What I deem to be a discovery able to be demonstrated, you still confine to the definitions that the author gives to the words used in his "analysis" and "assessment" of these relationships. The part where this "world of words" is connected to actual human interactions able to be approached and understood through experiments, predictions and replicated results is no where to be found. Still.

peacegirl wrote: What he did was just a clarification of determinism. He didn't change the definition to mean something altogether different. The only difference he pointed out is that even though will is not free, nothing can make you do what you don't want to do. Many people think determinism means you have to do what you are forced to do, even if it's against your will. His clarification of determinism is correct. Remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Another "world of words" that swirl around the definition and the meaning given to the words in the "assessment" itself. Connected to no other demonstration that the words are in fact true experientially relating to actual human interactions. The only "reality" here is the intellectual ccontraption. Words he was determined to write, words you were determined to post here, words I am determined to read. But only if my own assessment of determinism is true. And how on earth would I go about actually demonstrating that?!

iambiguous wrote:And since there is seemingly no way around this for you, you shift gears and turn the argument into a critique of me. I have a one track mind. I am commited to a false narrative. While once again [no doubt] admitting that I was never actually able not to embody these things.

peacegirl wrote: I am not critiquing you.

Well, not of your own free will.

peacegirl wrote: I'm sorry you don't like my wording.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to consider the wording and then, of my own volition, like the wording instead.

peacegirl wrote: I am only pointing out that you keep using the excuse that you can't help the way you respond. If you wanted to respond differently, you could. Nothing is stopping you but your desire not to change. To repeat: it is true that once you give a response it could not have been otherwise, but my correcting you may alter your response subsequently based on my response. We are constantly evaluating and reevaluating our responses based on input from the external world.

This is the part where I point out that in a determined universe [as I understand it] nothing that I want or desire is not in turn beyond my autonomous control. The external world and the internal world are all necessarily in sync with the laws of matter.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind [in an autonomous world] it is because you have invested so much of your own particular "I" [psychologically] in the confort and consolation the the author's argument has provided you. I am a threat to that. The intellectual contraption that the author has created is at risk of tumbling down. And I know of this calamity myself because my own objectivist contraptions are to this day still in heaps of rubble all around me.

peacegirl wrote: You are no threat. I am not depending on you for anything. To be clear, you are making assumptions about knowledge you haven't read, or even cared to read. You don't see yourself. You are coming off as this innocent person who is being accused yet you accusing me of using this knowledge as a defense mechanism, nothing more. This is a serious insult which requires me to be very clear about who is striking the first blow. If someone strikes a first blow, the one being struck is justified to strike back.

Well, autonomously or not, we'll have to just agree to disagree about this. First blow, last blow. And all the blows inbetween. Just don't call them "fated"?

peacegirl wrote: You have the capacity to understand what I'm saying if you really take the time. This is not rocket science. The problem is your resistance to trying.

Note to others:

All I can do here is to consider your own attempts to explain this better. Do I or do I not have the true capacity to understand her here? Is my resistence something that I have any true capacity to "for all practical purposes" reverse?

Given what you think she is attempting to convey about human will in a determined universe.

peacegirl wrote: You should not be reading this book. Please stay in your gruesome "human reality" if you feel this knowledge is just a psychological defense mechanism. It's anything but. I don't think there is any purpose to our continuing the conversation because you will only fight me without really taking the time to understand the principles.

iambiguous wrote:There you go again [in my view] reacting subjunctively in a manner in which I would expect someone who believes in free will might. Becoming aggitated that I am still refusing to grasp the importance of the author's discovery in a world where I am never able to react to it other than as I do. Which is as I must.

peacegirl wrote: I am allowed to be agitated, even if you couldn't react to it other than as you do. It doesn't matter. Our nature doesn't change just because we know will is not free. I am also reacting to you the way I am compelled to react to you. Determinism doesn't turn us into non-thinking, not emotional robots that don't have the ability to answer in a way that we see fit.

What does it mean to speak of behaviors being "allowed" in a determined universe? You acknowledge that I could not have reacted to it other than as I did. As in fact I must. And that you could not have been anything other than agitated as you were at my reaction. As you must have been. But this thinking and feeling of ours is not "robotic"? What we are to the dominoes, nature is not to us?

peacegirl wrote: YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

iambiguous wrote:No, I still cannot get it. Not until nature compels me to get it.

peacegirl wrote: Maybe if you stopped pooh poohing this knowledge and gave it a shot, you would get it. You're not allowing yourself to get it. I know you can't help yourself.

All I can do is to note how peculiar it seems to me to argue that I can't help but do the things that I am determined to do but that I should stop doing them anyway.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles